Karnataka Court March 2011 Judgments

Bus Operators Association Shimoga Rep. by Its President K.V. Jayapraka ...

Court: Karnataka

(This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to Quash the notification issued by the R1 Dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure-B) and etc.,) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the Notification dated 29.10.2007 issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure-B, are before this Court. 2. The first petitioner is a Registered Association of bus operators of Shimoga, the second and third petitioners are operators of stage carriage services. 3. According to the petitioners, Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) deals with speed limits and Section 113 of MV Act deals with weight limits and limitations on use i.e., carrying of excess passengers in transport vehicles is not made a distinct offence though carrying weight in goods vehicles is expressly forbidden. Further, it is stated that passengers traveling in vehicles in excess of the seating capacity may be due to several reasons such as jathras, special occasions etc., and during t...

parties : H.A. Balaji, S/O K M Chetty and Others Versus the State of K ...

Court: Karnataka

(This w.p is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to declare that the notification issued under section 17(1) issued on 15/12/1984 and gazetted on 17th january, 1985 as per annexure f and the notification under section 19 of the said act was issued on 28/11/1986 and gazetted on 25/12/1986 as per annexure g stand vitiated due to the inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings in so far as the petitioners land is concerned. This w.p is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to declare that the notification issued under section 17(1) issued on 15.12.1984 and gazetted on 17th january, 1985 as per annexure-b and the notification under section 19 of the said act was issued on 28.11.1986 and gazetted on 25.12.1986 as per annexure-c stand vitiated due to the inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. This w.p is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to declare that th...

Somanagouda and Others Vs. ShamshiddIn and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2146

(Prayer: This regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010 passed in R.A. No 13/2006. On the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, allowing the appeal, filed against the judgment dated 23.12.2005 and the decree passed in O.S. No. 60/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. D.N.) Savanur. Dismissing the suit filed for specific performance.) 1. This second appeal by the aggrieved first defendant in OS No 60 of 2001. On the file of Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC, Savanur, who though successfully defended the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.1.1989 and got the suit dismissed not on the ground of non-execution of the agreement but on the ground of want of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff-agreement holder to perform his part of the agreement, but was not so successful in the appeal of the plaintiff before the lower appellate court, wherein the adverse finding against the plaintiff ca...

Nagesh S/O Madashetty. Vs. R.Kumaresh S/O Ramanna, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsels tor respective parties as records have also been received, it is taken tip for final disposal.2. This is claimants appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries, which he has sustained in a motor accident.3. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and award dated 24.7.2009 passed in MVC No.332/2007 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT. Mandya.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.5. The brief facts of the case are :-The petitioner/claimant is aged about 30 years an agriculturist and coconut plucker by profession earning more than Rs.5,000/- p.m. He was hale and healthy as on the date of the accident.6. On 15.1.2007 at about 12.00 noon the petitioner and the co-claimant were proceeding in Male Mahadeshwara bus bearing No.TN 3/H. 1177 on Halagur-C...

Time Zone Entertainment Private Limited. Vs. the State of Karnataka Re ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In these petitions, petitioner has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Entertainment Tax Officer at Annexures E, F and G and also Annexures H, H1 and H2, the demand notices issued.2. Heard.3. Referring to Section 2(e)(ii) the definition clause and also Section 4-E of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act. 1958, the petitioner's counsel contends that as per the exhaustive definition, since petitioner is not charging any entry tee, the fee collected for participation which is below Rs.50/-, cannot be treated as one coming within the purview of Entertainment Tax to be charged under Section 4E and 4.F of the Act.4. The Assessment Officer however, having opined that the nature of the activity earned out by the petitioner is subject to Entertainment Tax. held that the actual participation and entry into the amusement area are two distinct aspects and accordingly, proceeded to pass the assessment order and quantified the tax payable, against which, petitioner is ...

National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Sri. Govindappa, S/O. Late Ped ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Though this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. This appeal by the appellant-Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29/09/2003 passed in WCA/FC/24/2001 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kolar, (hereinafter referred to as ' the Commissioner' for short) to consider the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Commissioner acted perversely and illegally in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation without serving notice of claim on the appellant?(ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in not even noticing the manipulations undertaken in his office in the order sheet by interpolating the name of the appellant dated 3.1.2003 and on subsequent dates without his signature?(iii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation assessed without there being any pr...

Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company Limited. Vs. the Labour Officer ...

Court: Karnataka

1. 2nd respondent filed an application under S.20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ("the Act" for short) claiming payment of wages at the overtime rate amounting to ?1,75,997.17 with interest. The claim made was for the period from 11.6.1975 to 30.11.1996 as conductor in the Balebare Byndeor Line Combined. Overtime allowance claimed was for a period of 21 years 5 months 19 days. The cla'in petition was accompanied by an application dated 8.3.2001 (I.A.I) to condone the delay in the matter of filing the application for grant of overtime wages. Separate objections were filed to the claim petition as well as to the LA. 1 for condonation of delay. The claim petition was contested by the petitioner which was the respondent before the authority. The authority has considered I.A.I along with the main petition. After condoning the delay, the petition has been allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay ?1,75,997.17 with ?10,000/- as penalty to respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the order passed...

M/S.Malu Sleepers Private Limited. Vs. State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. Through the instant writ petitions, the petitioner has assailed a communication dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure-J) passed by the Regional Office of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Chiekmagalur, curtailing the right of the petitioner herein to continue the stone crusher activity.2. Insofar as the aforesaid activity is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the consent order dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure-A) whereby, the petitioner herein was authorized to carry out various activities, including the running of a stone crusher, for the period from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2012. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the prevented is engaged in the manufacture of concrete sleepers for the railways, and as such, irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner, if the petitioner is j curtailed from continuing the activity for which, consent was accorded to him up to 30.6.2012. In this behalf, it is also the submission of the le...

K.Chandrashekar. S/O. Late Ramachandra Rao. Vs. Nagesba Rao, S/O. Late ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd March 2003 passed in O.S.No.5627/1998 by the XIX City Civil and Sessions Judge. Bangalore, has presented this appeal.2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent, for considerable length of lime. 3. Both the parties herein are former employees of HAL and both of them have retired. Therefore, having regard to the age and status of the parties and the nature of transactions between them and to put an end to the litigation, suggestions were made to settle the matter amicably.4. Accordingly, after due deliberation in the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel appearing for the parties have filed a joint memo dated 3rd March 2011, duly signed by the respective advocates and attested by the respondent, who is present before the Court, stating that the matter is settled in lull and final settlement of the claim of ...

M. Suresh Kothari S/O. Mr. Mangilal Kothari, and anr. Vs. Mr . Hariram ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Though these matters are posted in the orders list, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are taken up for hearing, heard and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1619/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nelarnangala and the respondents are the defendants. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 8.3.2006 and for certain other reliefs: The defendants have filed their written statement.The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 17 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC for recalling of the order dated 12.1.2011 and to re-open the ease and permit them to lead further evidence. I A. IS under Order 18 Rule 7 of the CPC to correct certain errors said to have been recorded by the Trial Court in the cross-examination of P.W.2 dated 12.1.2011 and I.A. 19 under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC to deler/adjourn the cross-examination of D.Ws.l and 2 The court below has dismissed the applications by its orde...