Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

M.B.Jagadish S/O M.S.Bhojangiah, and ors. Vs. C.Shankarlingaiah S/O S. ...

Court: Karnataka

1. MFA No.3493/2008 is against the judgment and award in MVC No.34i 2/2001. MFA No.2070/2008 is against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1734/2001 and MFA No.5278/2008 is by the claimant in MVC No. 1734/2001. Both MVC Nos.3412/2001 and 1734/2001 clubbed together and common judgment was rendered on 11.12.2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore. Hence, these appeals are also clubbed together and taken up together for final disposal.2. Facts in MVC No. 1734/2001 are relevant and same is considered. Claimant was Traffic Inspector on the date of accident, he was on duty at about 1.30 p.m. on 2.2.2001 near Siddaiah Circle. Kasturba Road. Bangalore. Appellant iri MFA No.3493/2008 and MFA No.2070/2008 is the rider and owp.er of the scooter bearing No.KA.O 1 h.8197. According to the claimant, the rider of the said motor cycle without, following the traffic signal came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which he fell ...

K.S. Manu S/O K.C. Shankara GowdA. Vs. the State of Karnataka Public W ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The order at Annexure-A by which respondent No.4 is deputed to the Post of Deputy Development Officer, Hassan, is called in question in this writ petition. Petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer in Regional Office, Hassan, as or. 13.6.2008. Since, the post of Deputy Development Officer, Hassan, was vacant for long time in the third respondent-Board, the petitioner was posted as In charge Deputy Development Officer as per Annexure-D, dated 13.5.2008. In the very order, it is made clear to the petitioner that he cannot claim promotion or seniority based on the in charge arrangement so made. Pursuant to the said order at Annexure-D, the petitioner has been working as in charge Deputy Development Officer, till this day.2. When the facts stood thus, respondent No.4, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the third respondent was deputed, in the public interest, to work in the said post in the Department of Industries and Commerce as per Annexure-B. Consequent upon th...

Harish Kumar S/O Puttaraju. Vs. the Manager National Insurance Co.Ltd, ...

Court: Karnataka

1. There is delay of 219 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned However, claimant is not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation if any.2. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident on 30.4.2006. Claimant has sought for compensation of Rs. 12,00.000/-. Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has granted compensation of Rs. 1.72..200/-. Being unsatisfied with tin- said award, claimant is in appeal.2. Insurer has not challenged the award. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is; "As to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ?" 3. The evidence produced by the claimant shows that, he has suffered fracture of both bones of middle 1 /3rd of left. leg. He was inpatient from 1.5.2006 to 25.6.2006. nearly about 42 days. He underwent implantation during this period....

Sri Achutha Rao, S/O Late U Srinivas Rao, and ors. Vs. Union of India, ...

Court: Karnataka

1. All these petitions arise out of the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board commonly known as Rajkumar Manisana Singh Wage Board" which were accepted by the Central Government subject to certain modifications and notified on 5.12.2000 and 15.12.2002 and the Notifications itself are dated 5.12.2000 and 15.12.2002.2. The petitioners in W.RNos.5226/ 10 and 6194-6206/10 are aggrieved by the respondent Management i.e. R-3 not implementing the recommendations of the wage board referred to above and therefore these petitions have been filed praying for direction to the respondent to take necessary action for issuing fresh Notification in the official gazette in respect of Manisana Wage Board Award and to direct the 3rd respondent to implement the Manisana Wage Board Award as accepted by the Government of India with effect from 1.6.1999.3. W.P.No. 14174/09 is filed by the Management aggrieved by the representation given by it being rejected by the 1st respondent in respect of certain re...

Kanikala ThimmappA. S/O Dasappa, and ors. Vs. State of KarnatakA. by S ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This petition is disposed of finally after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the State who took notice for the respondent.2. The short point for consideration is the court below having permitted the parties to compound the offence and having allowed the application filed U/S 320(2) of Cr.P.C. and having dismissed the application filed U/S 320(8) of Cr.P.C. could not have directed trial of the offence U/S 120-B of Cr.P.C.3. Submission of the petitioners counsel is that, though the application for compounding was filed following compromise entered into between the rival parties and the parties sought for closure of the case filed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC. the trial court having permitted the parties to compound the offence by allowing the applications, could not have ordered continuation of the trial U/S 120-B of the IPC and in this connection learned counsel referred to the Apex Court decision re...

Siemens Information Processing Services Private Limited. Vs. Nil

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the papers.2. The applicant has submitted the application requesting for dispensation of the meetings of the share holders and creditors of the Applicant Company for approving the scheme of amalgamation produced at Annexure-G.3. The applicant Company was incorporated on 13-10- 2000 at Bangalore under the name of Siemens Shared Services India Private Limited and changed its name to Siemens BPO Services Private Limited with effect from 15.07.2005. The present name comes into effect from 17.08.2006.4. In terms of the latest Audited Accounts of the applicant as on 30-09-2010 (Annexure-D). Us authorised capital is Rs.5,00,00,000/- (50,00.000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and its issued, subscribed and paid up capital is Rs.4,16,43,140/- (41.64,314 equity shares of Rs.10/- each).5. The applicant has got only two shareholders i.e., the Transferee Company Siemens Information Systems Limited which holds 49% of its paid up share capital ...

Srinath S/O Gopinat. Vs. D.N.C. Manivannan S/O D.N.Chnnaiswamy, and an ...

Court: Karnataka

1. It is submitted that. Sri H.S.Lingaraj has filed vakalath for respondent No.2. Show the name of Sri H.S.Lingaraj for respondent No.2 and delete the name of Sri Ravish Benni for respondent No.2. Heard Sri H.S.Lingaraj.2. There is delay of 191 days m filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served arid represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.3. This is claimant's appeal .seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident on 12.8.2006. the tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded Rs.10.000/- global compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant, as against which, this appeal is filed.4. Insurer has not in disputed the liability. No appeal is filed against the said award. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is: "As to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"5. Ex.P13 wound certificate discloses that, claimant has suffered seven injuries. PW3 i...

Prakash Keshav Ganguli Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep by Its Secretary, S ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner calls in question his dismissal from the services of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the order of dismissal dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure-G) and the subsequent order directing the petitioner to hand over the documents etc, on being relieved following his dismissal (Annexure-H) as well as the report of the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate (Annexure-F) 2. Brief facts which have led to the aforesaid orders being passed and now being questioned in this petition are that, the petitioner joined the services of R-5 Insurance Company by giving his caste as “Kotegar” and the said caste falls under the Scheduled Caste. Caste certificate was issued by the Tahasildar during 1980-81 and after joining the service during 1980-81, he was promoted as Assistant Manager in 1991 and finally, at the time of dismissal, he was holding the post of Deputy Manager. 3. The District Level Caste Verification Committee received a report from the Additional Director General of Pol...

M/S. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S. B.K. Constructions (Bk ...

Court: Karnataka

1. A.C. No.1/1996 is filed by M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Limited under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, requesting this Court to make the award passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of this Court. 2. A.C.No.2/1996 is filed by the respondent in the aforesaid proceedings namely M/s. B.K. Constructions (BKC) under Section 30 read with Section 70 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying to set aside the award. 3. As the subject matter of both these cases are one and the same and the parties are also same, these appeals are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order: 4. For the purpose of clarity, M/s. B.K. Constructions would be referred to hereinafter as the ‘applicant’ and M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Limited as ‘respondent’, as they were arrayed in the original proceedings. 5. Before we go into the merits of the claim, for proper appreciation, it is necessary to place on record ...

Girish B D Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep by Its Principal Secretary, Ban ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KantLJ186; 2011(4)KCCR3259

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a Prayer to call for the Records R.A. No.20/2009-10 from the 2nd respondent. Quash the Order/ Proceedings Bearing no.3/01-02 passed by the R4 dt.4.8.01 Under Ann-B Consequently quash the order dt.9.7.09 passed by the R3 Under Ann-C and quash the Order dt.24.5.10, passed by the R3 Under Ann-D to the WP by issuing the writ in the Nature of Certiorari.) 1. Provisions of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short `the Act’) is a provision which at the best can enable an unauthorised cultivator in occupation and cultivation of a government land otherwise available for grant to be granted in favour of such person. 2. A person not in occupation and cultivation can never putforth a claim under the statutory provisions just because the statutory provision exists. 3. Writ petitioner is a person, who claims is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of an extent of 4 acre...