Karnataka Court February 2009 Judgments

Oriental Insurance Company Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Reg ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal rejecting the application of the Insurance Company seeking permission to cross examine the claimant on al grounds, on the ground that owner of the vehicle is contesting the case on merits.2 Respondents-1 to 4 are the claimants in MVC No. 9296/07 and connected matters where compensation is claimed for the death of one P. Somashekar. Respondents-5 to 11 are also claimants in the connected petition. 12th respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. He has filed detailed statement of objections denying the claim. After issues are framed, petitioner have led evidence in support of their claim. The Counsel on behalf of second respondent has cross examined the claimants. After the said cross examination is over, the Insurance Company filed application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking permission of the Court to cross-examination P....

Chandrashekar Chavan Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ649; 2009(4)KCCR2555; 2009(4)AIRKarR178

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 11-2-2009 made in Application No. 602 of 2009 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner had chosen to challenge the order of suspension dated 2-2-2009 passed by the first respondent herein on the basis of the case registered in Crime No. 14 of 2008 by the Lokayukta Police under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. According to him, his services were lent from the parent department (PWD) to the lending department, namely, the second respondent. As per Rule 15(1)(2C), it is only respondent 2 who has got the power to initiate the impugned disciplinary proceedings, much less, to pass ...

Sree Vinayaka Devasthana Samithi Vs. Smt. Kamalamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4021; 2009(5)KarLJ361; 2009(2)KCCR1494; 2009(3)KCCR1951

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. These four writ petitions arise out of two awards passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. Nos. 15 and 16 of 2004, both dated 25-2-2008. W.P. Nos. 8012 and 8013 of 2008 are by the management. W.P. Nos. 12073 and 12074 of 2008 are by the workmen viz., P. Krishnappa and Smt. Kamalamma-workmen.2. Management has filed the writ petitions against the direction of the Labour Court for reinstatement of the workmen whereas, both the workmen have filed writ petitions against the denial of back wages and consequential benefits.3. Both the workmen sought for reference of dispute against the termination of their services. It is stated that, both the workmen were removed from service on 28-5-1999. It is also stated that, both are husband and wife.4. Case of the workmen was that, they were appointed as helpers in the temple in 1987 on a salary of Rs. 100/- per month and no appointment order was issued to them. The last paid salary was Rs. 1,100/-. Witho...

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri D. Kenchappa a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2009Kant186; ILR2009KAR1580:2009(3)KCCRSN107:2009(4)AIRKarR284:AIR2009Kar186

V. Jagannathan, J.1. As common question of law arises for consideration in these two appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the cases, the Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that the accidents in question were caused on account of the buses, which were driven under the control of the K.S.R.T.C. In both the cases, though the buses in question belong to the registered owners, the K.S.R.T.C. had taken them on hire under an agreement with the registered owners.3. M.F.A. No. 8042/2006 is preferred by the N.W.K.R.T.C. aggrieved by the liability being put on it exclusively to satisfy the award amount and in M.F.A. No. 11440/2007, the liability was put on the Insurance Company with whom the registered owner had insured the bus. The contention of the Road Transport Corporation in both the cases is that the buses in question were owned by the registered owners, who had insured them with the Insurance Company and, therefore, the K.S.R.T.C. is not liable. Wher...

Sap India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)26VST417(Karn); 2009(3)KCCRSN96

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The writ petition by an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was being assessed to certain tax liability for the periods 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The tax liability in respect of these periods with penalty are as under: Details of Arrears________________________________________________________________________ Year KST Penalty Total________________________________________________________________________ 2002-03 1,37,64,358 2,06,46,537 3,44,10,895 2003-04 2,84,49,636 4,26,74,454 7,11,24,090 2004-05 37,54,11,027 56,31,16,659 93,85,27,686________________________________________________________________________ Total 41,76,25,021 62,64,37,650 1,04,40,62,671________________________________________________________________________2. The liability is sought to be realised by the respondents, Commercial Tax Department of the Government of Karnataka, by resorting to the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act,...

Tumkur Poura Karmikara Sangha (Regd.) Vs. the Municipal Council and an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ96; (2009)IVLLJ709Kant

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is by the Union, questioning the award in I.D. No. 251 of 2002 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 4th July, 2006.2. Petitioner-Union sought for reference of dispute and the State Government in terms of its order dated 8-11-2002 produced at Annexure-A referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on an issue as to whether the respondent 1-Municipal Council justified in not regularising the services of 250 workmen of the respondent-Municipal Council and also for not paying equal pay for equal work and also as to whether the respondent is justified in not providing uniform, footwear and other facilities.3. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Union alleged that, they have been working for several years in the Municipality on different wages and in 1997, the Municipality started paying the salaries through the third person, calling himself as contractor. It is stated that, the Municipality being a self-Government and State within ...

A.R.A. Basith Saheb Charitable Trust Vs. Karnataka State Board of Wakf ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2403; 2009(4)KarLJ90

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of demand notices at Annexures-J, K and 1 or in the alternative to declare Section 72 of the Wakf Act, 1995, as unconstitutional.2. The petitioner A.R.A. Basith Saheb Charitable Trust is a Private Trust located at Mysore Road, Bangalore, generally serving the poor travelling public. It is a Wakf property, basically caters to the accommodation needs for the 'travelling public' at a nominal cost and also provides space for conduct of marriages, etc., mostly to poorer Sections of the society. Out of its income, it maintains the upkeep of institutions which involves considerable expenditure. Out of the net income, contribution is made to the Wakf Board in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. The District Wakf Officer issued notice dated 28-9-2005 calling upon the petitioner to submit the statement of accounts for the period from 1-4-2002 to 2005, budget estimate for the year 2005-06 and de...

High Court of Karnataka Vs. Rangappa Bhovi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3638; 2009(4)KarLJ299

1. This is a suo motu contempt initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. The respondent/accused Rangappa Bhovi has filed a police complaint against a sitting Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 13-2-2008 before the Deputy Commissioner which has been forwarded to Jurisdictional Police at Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bangalore, alleging that in the Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2006 filed by him and Writ Petition No. 10825 of 2006 filed by the Management, the learned Single Judge in collusion with the management, in order to cause injustice to a dalit like the petitioner (accused herein), by misusing his power and adopting corrupt method illegally, dismissed his writ petition thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to him. As the said criminal complaint was against a sitting Judge of the High Court in respect of offences alleged to have been committed, the police intimated the filing of this complai...

Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Vs. B.A. Umesh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3642; 2009(2)KCCR1466; 2009(4)AIRKarR448

S.R. Bannurmath, J.(On difference of opinion between V.G. Sabhahit and R.B. Naik, JJ.:1. This reference and the criminal appeal are placed before me under Section 392 Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that both the learned Judges have found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 392 and 302 IPC. Though both the Hon'ble Judges held that, the case falls clearly under the category of 'Rarest of Rare Cases', there is a difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.G. Sabhahit and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Naik as to whether the accused should be given capital punishment or not. As such, the present reference under Section 392 Cr.P.C. is before me.2. In order to appreciate the evidence and the arguments on both the sides, it is necessary to look into the essential facts of the case as put forward by the prosecution.3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Smt. Jayashri, mother of P.W.2 -Suresh and sister of P.W.22 - Manjula, was the widow of late Dr. Mara...

Official Liquidator of Alliance Leathers P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas429(Kar)

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This application is by the official liquidator of the company in liquidation with a prayer to declare the sale of assets of the company by respondent No. 1, M/s. Kerala Financial Corporation in favour of respondent No. 2, M/s. Travancore Heaven P. Ltd., as void; to direct the respondents to hand over the assets of the company to the official liquidator, etc.2. It is stated that M/s. Alliance Leathers P. Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court by order dated December 1, 1999, in Co. P. No. 26 of 1994. The petition for winding up was presented before this Court on February 24, 1994.3. It is stated that the building, plant and machinery and furniture of the company in liquidation was sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs. Respondent No. 2 had remitted Rs. 10 lakhs, being part of the sale consideration on March 31, 1996. The sale has been confirmed by respondent No. 1 as per letters dated November 8, 2000 and Sept...