Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC615; 1998ACJ392; ILR1997KAR2812
Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 26.7.91 in MVC NO.365/89 and MVC No. 366/89 passed by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chickmagalur, whereby the claims of the husband and wife, who both suffered injuries in a common road accident, were allowed in part.2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah and Sri N.S. Rajanna for the respondent No. 2. We have also perused the case records including the records of the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, in brief referred to herebelow as MACT for convenience.3. When these two appeals were argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, an important question arose in the midst as to whether it is permissible for the Claims Tribunal to award a sum beyond a limit of Rs. 15,000/- under the head 'Medical Expenses' as set out in second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioner is an Association of employees of the 2nd respondent, the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd, Under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (Central Act XX of 1946), hereinafter referred to as the Act, the 2nd respondent filed a draft of standing orders before the Labour Commissioner in Mysore, who is the certifying officer under the Act for certification. Before certifying the draft standing orders, the Certifying Officer is said to have made many modifications therein. In making those modifications the Certifying Officer virtually substituted for the draft standing orders the model standing orders prescribed by the Government under the Act. Both sides were dissatisfied with the order of the Certifying Officer and therefore presented appeals under Section 6 of the Act before the Appellate authority prescribed under the Act, viz., the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, who is the 1st respondent in the petition. The Employees' Association bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant65; AIR1959Mys65; 1959CriLJ347; (1958)36MysLJ744
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. This revision petition raises an intricate point regarding the interpretation and effect Of Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced for the first time by the amending Act XXVI of 1955. There is only one reported decision of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court dealing with this Section and that is found reported in C.B.L. Bhatnagar v. The State, : AIR1958Bom196 . The observations made in that judgment are relied upon by both sides in support of their respective contentions, although the decision itself does not finally conclude the controversy now before me for decision.2. The undisputed facts may be stated briefly. In the wake of the reorganization of States in 1956 there were some disturbances in Belgaum in consequence of which orders were issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. Breaches of these orders were committed or attempt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant188; AIR1959Mys188
1. This second appeal arises out of a decree in a suit where the plaintiffs sought to avoid the sale transaction purported to have been entered into by their predecessor-in-title on the ground that she was a minor at the date of the transaction. The plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of one Thayamma. She and her brother Chikkanna were owners of the suit property, each having a half and half interest in it.Both of them purported to sell the suit property to defendant 1 under the sale deed Ext. IV dated 24-10-40. After the document was duly executed by both of them, it was taken to the Sub-Registrar for registration. He suspected that Thayamma may not be a major. Although he registered the sale deed as executed by Chikkanna, he declined to register it as executed by Thayamma with an endorsement to that effect below the document. Nothing further appears to have been done to rectify the matter and it appears that defendant 1 continued to be in possession of the whole of the suit property.Def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(2)KarLJ475; (1994)ILLJ49Kant
1. All these writ appeals are preferred against the Order dated January 22, 1993 passed by the learned Singe Judge in W.P. Nos. 25471 and 25472 of 1990 and other writ petitions. Except Writ Appeal Nos. 681 and 682 of 1993, which are preferred by the respondents in the writ petitions, all other writ appeals are preferred by the petitioners in the writ petitions. Hence all the writ appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for a declaration that Para 26(1)(a) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') as amended by the Notification No. S-35012/90-SS.II dated October 19, 1990 is ultra vires being beyond the scope of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners challenged the aforesaid Notification dated October 19, 1990 on another ground viz., that it was not placed befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1492; 2004(2)KarLJ553
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The property of erstwhile his Highness Maharaja of Mysore, is the subject-matter of these two appeals. R.S.A. No. 840 of 1999 is filed by the defendant 2. R.S.A. No. 488 of 1999 is filed by the purchasers from the appellant in R.S.A. No. 840 of 1999, who have purchased the property during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court.2. One N.V. Mahadevappa filed a suit in O.S. No. 43 of 1974 on the file of Civil Judge, Mysore against Shri Yuvaraja Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar Trust, represented by its Secretary, H.N. Palegar, Secretary of Mysore Palace Trust, Mysore, contending that the suit property originally belonged to Shri Yuvaraja Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar's Trust, Mysore and that he had taken the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 175- and has been in possession of the same by paying the monthly rent very regularly throughout. It is further averred that the defendant Shri Yuvaraja Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant14; AIR1952Mys14; ILR1952KAR102
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs in two capacities--(1) one under Section 92, Civil P. C., after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, and (a) in a representative character under Order l, Rule 8, Civil P. C. After the suit was filed, the plaintiffs made an application to the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. 0. and the Court ordered the publication of usual notices inviting the inhabitants of Shimoga town to join in the suit either as plaintiffs or as defendants.2. The property involved in this litigation is a large piece of land situated in Shimoga Town in which there is a gymnasium or talimkhana and some shops on the edge of the open space abutting the road which belonged to the institution of Talimkhana. The property is apparently of considerable value as the land is situate in a prominent part of the Town of Shimoga and is capable of being largely developed for the benefit of the persons wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)DMC79; ILR2002KAR1831; 2004(3)KarLJ75
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.A Full Bench of this Court not agreeing with the view taken by an earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Jayakumar v. Smt. Harriet Nirmala and observing that 'there are number of reference petitions pending in this Court which shall now have to await the decision of the larger Bench', has referred this matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide its order dated 15-12-2000.2. As per the direction of the Chief Justice vide order dated 8-3-2002, the matter has been placed before this larger Bench of five Judges with advance notice on 15-3-2002. The points referred for consideration, are:(i) Whether a reference to High Court for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984?(ii) Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 19 of the Fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. In all these writ petitions the respondent - schools are situated in different parts of Karnataka and they are affiliated to Indian Council for Secondary Education (ICSE) or Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) syllabus. The petitioners in W.P, No. 34192/2009 and W.P. No. 15296/2009 are the parents and parent's associations of the students studying in the respondent schools. The parents and parent's associations are before this Court questioning the hike in school fee made by respondent schools under the impugned circulars, letters of intimation etc.. as arbitrary, unilateral, unjust and illegal. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 24654/2005 h an employee of respondent No. 3 school controlled and managed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner in this petition contends that office of Principal of the respondent school became vacant on account of retirement of the then principal on 31.15.2005. In anticipation of the vacancy of Principal post respondent No. 2 invited applications from e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
JUDGMENT 1. Though matter is listed today for admission by consent of learned Advocates the matter is taken up for final hearing since it is of the year 2007 and Lower Court records having been received 2. The unsuccessful claimant is questioning the correctness and the legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.847/1999 dated 13.10.2006 whereundcr the claim petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. The parties aie referred to as per the ranks in the Court below. 3. The facts in nutshell leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: Smt.Puttamma was said to be travelling in a Lorry bearing No.CRT-8338 with her luggage on 13.05.1992 and when the said vein'cie reached Kattigenahalli gate on National Highway 4 at about 8.00 p.m. accident in question occurred on account of the negligent act on the part of the driver of the Lorry as well as by the driver of the opposite Lorry bearing Reg. No. CNL-5550. It was contended before the Tribunal that clue to I he said a...
Tag this Judgment!