Karnataka Court June 2009 Judgments

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by Regional Manager Vs. Smt. Parvathi ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Respondents 1 to 5 had filed MVC 460/2005 against the appellant/6th respondent and one J.K. Ramegowda under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he said petition was allowed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV at Chickkamagalur, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,13,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and directing the appellant to satisfy the award. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.2. One Ramagiri Naik, son of Narayana Naik, resident of T.B. Kaval, Nidagatta post, Kadur taluk in Chikmagalur District, &n; agriculturist and shandy businessman, while travelling in the goods van bearing Registration No. KA-18/4337 along with his goods, met with a fatal accident and succumbed to the injuries. The 1st respondent is his wifk and respondents 2 to 5 are his children. They filed claim petition under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, the death of the said Ramagiri Naik was due to actionable neg...

Sri H. Ebrahim, Managing Director of H.E. Distilleries (P) Ltd., Vs. t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3875; [2009]185TAXMAN11(Kar)

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners are before this Court for the second time. The genesis of the petitioners case can be summarized as follows:The first petitioner is the Managing Director and petitioners 2 to 4 are the Directors of a Private Limited Company under the name and style of H.E. Distilleries Private Limited. The company was incorporated in the year 1990 and commenced its operation from the year 1991. It appears, the Company, right from day one has teen inclining loss and never really took off. The officers of the respondents on 18.01.2001 aimed with a warrant of authorization, conducted a search in the premises of the Company. During the course of the said search operation several documents were seized by the department. It appears, a statement of the fourth petitioner was also recorded who is a Director of the Company during the course of the said search proceedings. Pursuant to the said search, an order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer determining ...

J. Prakash Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Defence,

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The fads of the case are as follows:-The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 28.2.1991. Alter completion of training, the petitioner is slated to have been posted to 16 Engineer Regiment. It is his contention that he was medically and physically fit before he was selected to the army. He continued to maintain medical category 'AYE', which is the highest medical fitness at all limes till September 1995. At that point of time when he reported to his Regiment Medical Inspection Room with a headache, the petitioner was referred to the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantonment. After routine tests, the petitioner was diagnosed as a case of 'Head injury effects of V6-7' and was placed in medical category CEE (temporary) for a period of twelve weeks with effect from 24.11.1995, in terms of Annexure-'A' to the writ petition. This was pursuant to an opinion by the Medical Board held on 24/11/1995 at the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantonmen...

Sri Ni Pra Channabasava Deshikendra Swamigalu Matadhipathigalu Vs. C.P ...

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.8.2004 pasted in Inam Case No. 1/83-84/87-88 c/w. Case No. MAG 71/2002-03 and remanding the matter hack to the Tahsildar to consider the application in Form No. 5 afresh in accordance with law. Earlier by a common judgment this Court on 12.09.2007 allowed the writ anneals filed by the respondents herein holding that the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar was without jurisdiction and therefore the order of remand is bad in law. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. Against the said order, the appellants preferred Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1040-1053 of 2009. Leave was granted, the appeal was heard on merits. The Apex Court held, neither Section 43 nor Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act has any application to the facts of the case and the High Court was not justified in holding Section...

H.J. Siwani S/O Late J.K. Siwani and Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Mini ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4239

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners have questioned the endorsement vide Annexure-C, dated 30.3.2007 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, by which the objections tiled by the petitioners for the notification issued under Section 3-C(1) of Karnataka Highways Act, 1956, are not considered. Consequently, the petitioners have questioned the final notification acquiring the property of the petitioners bearing Sy. No. 58/1A, situated at Avalahalli Village, Bangalore to an extent of 2393 sq.mtrs. for widening up National Highway No. 4 in Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangaiore Section. The petitioners have also sought for declaration that Sub-section (4) of Section 3-D of National Highway Act is ultra virus, inasmuch as it affects Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India.The land bearing Sy.No. 58/lA situated at Avaiahalli Village is owned by the petitioners and others. The preliminary notification is issued on 14.12.2006 by the respondents declaring their intention to...

Sureshkumar M. JaIn Vs. R. Rathan Roy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ172

H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against an interlocutory order dated 20-12-2008 passed by the Trial Court - the Court of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in the suit in O.S. No. 7342 of 2008 rejecting his application-I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for grant of an ad interim order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from producing, distributing and marketing the DVDs and VCDs of the movies mentioned in the plaint schedule.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that there is a serious procedural irregularity in the proceeding before the Trial Court inasmuch as the defendant namely R. Rathan Roy did not appear before the Trial Court but the application-I.A. No. 1 was resisted by his brother namely R. Deepak Roy and no relief was sought against him. Learned Counsel fur...

Sri Vaddanahal Rajanna (Huf), Prop. Vaddanahal Shivalingappa and Co., ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV. Gopalagowda, J.1. This appeal is along with Misc.Cvl. 9372/09 to condone the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is filed by the Assessee. Since we are not interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal, accepting the reasons in support of the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and this appeal is taken up for admission.2. Heard Sri R. Rama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Correctness of the impugned order is questioned in this appeal by framing following substantial questions of law and urged grounds in support of the same.(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case, order of the Appellate Tribunal is not one of perverse?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer?(iii) Whether, order of the Tribunal is substantial in law?3. It is also contended by the learn...

Smt. Roopa G.R. W/O Dushyanth and ors. Vs. Sri Madavan and the Manager ...

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of the lone bread earner of the family.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. The claimant is the young widow, etaimanis-2 and 5 are minor children and claixoants-3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Dushyanth, who died in a motor vehicle accident. On 25.10.2006 at about 7.30 p.m when deceased Dushyanth was driving the Maruthi Van bearing CTA No. 2779 along with his friend on Hassan-Behir Road, near the tend of Papuswamy at Angadibaili, a Jorry bearing registration No. KA-13-B-7000 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Mamri Van. The deceased and his friend Raghu died at the spot The deceased was an agriculturist, he was doing earpentiy work and he was also a business man. He was earning Rs. 15000-00 per month. Therefore the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 25 lakh...

Sri Sathyamoorthy S/O. Perumal Vs. the Secretary to the Government of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ327

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. This Public Interest Litigation is riled by Sri Sathyamoorthy, claiming to be a public spirited citizen, interested in safeguarding the public at large, against the exploitation of iron ore minerals in Karnataka.2. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs in the writ petition:i. to direct the respondents not to issue any mining leases in respect of iron ore within the State of Karnataka, until all existing steel industries are issued captive mining leases;ii. to reserve certain areas exclusively for existing steel industries;iii. to grant Captive Mining Leases to Steel Manufacturing industries in the State of Karnataka in proportion to their respective licensed capacity on preferential basis;iv. not to renew any existing mining lease unless necessary investment is made by the lease towards value addition;v. to increase the royalty and licence fee to a minimum of 10% of value of iron ere extracted; andvi. direct the respondents to frame appropriate Rule...

Kuberappa, Vs. T.C. Gopal S/O Channaiah Gowda @ Channappa Gowda @ Chan ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3182; 2009(5)AIRKarR510

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. Petitioners and respondent No. 3 are defendants and respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff before the trial Court. In this order for convenience, the parties are refereed to their status before the trial Court.2. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 203/2005 against the defendants for partition and separate possession of his 7/30th share in the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement interalia contending that on 25.04.1987, a partition had already taken place and therefore the question of again partitioning plaint schedule properties will not arise. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and the plaintiff completed his evidence on his side. At the time of evidence of DW-1 he tried to produce the partition deed dated 25.04.1987. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff objected for marking the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 on the ground that it is not duly stamped and that the same is unregistered. The trial Court after hearing b...