Court : Karnataka
1. These batch of appeals are preferred by the employers challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge who set aside the notification dated 1.8.2001 by which the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) came to be rescinded and also the declaration granted by the learned single Judge that statutory canteens employees are to be regularized by the respective managements according to the terms of his order and the other consequential reliefs which he has granted. 2. As the subject matter of all these appeals and the questions raised and to be considered are one and the same, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this order. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original writ proceedings. For proper appreciation of the legal issues which arise for consideration in these proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2589; 2009(6)KarLJ205
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 27(2) and (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter far short referred to as the Act') as well as the procedure followed by the District and State Consumer Forum in issuing arrest warrants against them. Therefore, all these Writ Petitions axe taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the rival contentions, the facts pleaded in W.P. No. 700/2008 and the statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 18465/ 2006 by the Union of India which was adopted by them as the statement of objections in all the Writ Petitions, is set out as under.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is in the business of land development and construction. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the land owners for development of land bearing Sy. No. 4848 and 2878 at 6th Main, V.V. Puram, Devaraja Moha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR1361; 1995(2)KarLJ28
ORDERNavadgi, J1. These Revision Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order since the Question of Law involved in alt of them is the same. The original Order shall be kept in the record and proceedings in Criminal Revision Petition No. 114/93, whereas a copy thereof shall be retained in each of the record and proceedings in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.586, 587 and 588, of 1994.Facts in Cr.R.P.No. 114/19932. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23-12-1992 made by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Raichur ('the learned trial Judge' for short), in Special Atrocities C.C.No. 11/1991. Under the order impugned, the learned trial Judge has held that the only offence he could try under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short), would be the one punishable under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act. In that view of the matter, he has altered the charges framed aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR285]; ILR2002KAR4817; 2003(1)KarLJ274; (2003)ILLJ781Kant
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. Since these two writ petitions arise against the same award passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in KID No. 96 of 1989, these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. W.P. No. 44626 of 1995 is filed by Rajashree Cements challenging the award ordering for reinstatement of its earlier workman, one Naeem Pasha while the other writ petition has been filed by the workman against that portion of the award denying back wages and continuity of service while ordering for his reinstatement.3. Facts will be referred to with reference to W.P. No. 44626 of 1995.4. The workman Naeem Pasha was working as an 'Air-Condition Refrigeration Mechanic' in the petitioner's establishment. He was charged of having committed the following acts of misconduct i.e.,(1) On 10-8-1987 at about 9.15 a.m., he unauthorisedly left the work spot and also incited other workers to abstain from work.(2) That on the same day at about 12.15 p.m. he and other workers went to Sid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1375; 2002(2)KarLJ537
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the authorized Officer, Hassan Division, Hassan dated 15-12-1995 in Case No. CI.Amo.CR. 55/89-90 confirmed in Cri. A. No. 4 of 1996, dated 25-6-1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The authorized officer - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hassan Division, by the impugned order confiscated the lorry bearing Registration No. CTS 9243 claimed to be the property of the petitioner which order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:The lorry bearing Registration No. CTS 9243 which was in the ownership of the petitioner was taken on hire for the purpose of transporting oranges. It is the case of the petitioner that the driver and the cleaner of the said lorry came and informed on the evening of 31-12-1989 that somebody committed theft of the lorry. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1987)ACC1; AIR1989Kant104
Venkatachalaiah, J.1. This appeal by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., is directed against the Award dt. 20-31-1986 made in M.V.C. No. 180/83 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,37,800/- to the dependants of the deceased person in a fatal accident -action.Respondent - claimants are the widow and minor children of a certain Ravindra, an employee of the appellant-Corporation. On 20-4-1983, Ravindra, in the course of the employment, was travelling in appellants van (MYE-5007) to Bangalore. At about 5-00 a. m., when the vehicle was approaching the outskirts of Nelamangala Town, the van went off the road and hit a road-side tree. Ravindra sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed. His widow and children brought a claim before the Tribunal.2. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was attributable to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the van....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000ACJ385; AIR2000Kant73; ILR1999KAR3219; 1999(5)KarLJ573
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(1), 140 and 147(1);Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 95(1)Cases Referred:New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore v. Nagarathna, 1996(6) Kar. L.J. 77, ILR 1996 Kar. 3041;Kashmir D. Gudinho (deceased) by L.R. and Another v. Suresh Kulkarni and Others, 1997(5) Kar. L.J. 364, ILR 1997 Kar. 1491;National Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore v. Smt. Rasheeda and Another, 1997(7) Kar. L.J. 629, ILR 1997 Kar. 2697;Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressingh Company Private Limited, AIR 1977 SC 1735, 1977 ACJ 343;National Insurance Company v. Dundamma, 1991(3) Kar. L.J. 505, ILR 1991 Kar. 2045;A.A. Haja Muniuddian v. India Railways, AIR 1993 SC 361, (1992) 4 SCC 736;Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1187, (1987) 2 SCC 654;United India Insurance Company v. Kashimsab, 1993(2) Kar. L.J. 559, ILR 1993 Kar. 1991;Shanthabai and Others v. Shekappa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant265; AIR1959Mys265; ILR1959KAR168
N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act by claimants 6 and 7 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mandya, holding that the reference made to him under Section 30 of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya, was incompetent.2. The circumstances leading to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge may be briefly narrated. The acquisition of 38 guntas in Survey No. 74 of R. Kodinalli village, Mandya Taluk, was notified in the Mysore Gazette of 19-3-1942 under Section 4 of the Act. The names of four persons who figured later as claimants 1 to 4 before the learned Subordinate Judge were mentioned as those of the Khatedars and Anubhavadars of the land as would appear from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer no one else seems to have appeared.He made an award on 30-4-1944 directing that the amount determined by him as compensation was to be paid to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(243)ELT161(Kar); ILR2009KAR2974; 2009(5)AIRKarR446
ORDERK.N. Keshavanarayan, J.1. As common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in all these revision petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment2. All these revision petitions are filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts' Act, against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Facts leading to the presentation of these revision petitions are as under:Hindusthan Aeronautics Limited (for short HAL), a Government of India Undertaking imported certain spare parts for its Aircraft Division from foreign suppliers. These goods were duly insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., (for short Insurer). The imported goods landed in Bangalore Airport on 4.6.2000. The Mysore Sales International Limited, (for short MSIL) had been appointed as a custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the goods imported and landed in Bangalore Air...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR142
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., is directed against the Award dated 26-3-1986 made in M.V.C. No. 180/83 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,37,800/- to the dependants of the deceased person in a fatal-accident-action.Respondent-claimants are the widow and minor children of a certain Ravindra, an employee of the Appellant-Corporation. On 20-4-1983, Ravindra, in the course of his employment, was travelling in appellant's van (MYE 5007) to Bangalore. At about 5-00 a.m. when the vehicle was approaching the outskirts of Nelamangala Town, the van went-off the road and hit a road-side tree. Ravindra sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed. His widow and children brought a claim before the Tribunal.2. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was attributable to the actionable-negligence on the part of the driver of the va...
Tag this Judgment!