Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001ACJ1528; AIR2001Kant275; ILR2001KAR2879; 2001(5)KarLJ322
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 92-A, 92(2), 94, 95(1), 95(2), 96, 96(2), 140, 140(5), 141, 145, 149, 163-A, 163-A(1), 163-A(3), 163-B, 166, 173 and 217;Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110 and 110-F;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 39-A and 41;Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 33, Rule 9-A;Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923Cases Referred:Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, AIR 1997 SC 412;Ramdev Singh v. Chudasama and Others and Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Another, 1999 ACJ 1129, (1999) 1 Guj. L.R. 631 (Guj.);Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 ACJ 219 (Ker.), 1971 Ker. LT 380;Mangilal v. Parasram, AIR 1971 M.P. 5, 1970 ACJ 86 (M.P.);M/s Marine and General Insurance Company Limited v. Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 Bom. 53, 1976 ACJ 288 (Bom.);Haji Zakaria v. Naoshir Cama, AIR 1976 A.P. 171, 1976 ACJ 320 (A.P.);British India General Insurance Company Limited v. Captain Itbar S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2002)ACC350
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Keeping in mind the importance of various questions arising regarding the scope and applicability of Section 163A which was inserted by the Parliament in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act') by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54/1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') the Division Bench on 3rd of March, 2000 after formulating certain questions of law which were likely to arise and affect a large number of appeals or proceedings pending before this Court requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench to lay down law for its uniform applicability in the State of Karnataka and to avoid difference of opinion amongst various Benches.Facts:On 28.3.1987, one Pradeep Wadi and his younger brother Praveen Kumar Wadi were proceeding on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. CAX 9954. Praveen Kumar Wadi was driving the motor cycle and Pradeep Wadi was the pillion rider. They were proceeding from Bangalore t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3638; 2009(4)KarLJ299
1. This is a suo motu contempt initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. The respondent/accused Rangappa Bhovi has filed a police complaint against a sitting Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 13-2-2008 before the Deputy Commissioner which has been forwarded to Jurisdictional Police at Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bangalore, alleging that in the Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2006 filed by him and Writ Petition No. 10825 of 2006 filed by the Management, the learned Single Judge in collusion with the management, in order to cause injustice to a dalit like the petitioner (accused herein), by misusing his power and adopting corrupt method illegally, dismissed his writ petition thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to him. As the said criminal complaint was against a sitting Judge of the High Court in respect of offences alleged to have been committed, the police intimated the filing of this complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1997)ACC72
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal which creates a rather delicate situation for the Court and raises, once more a situation whereby the Court is required to almost bend over backwards for purposes of moulding a relief within the framework of the law. Though the issue appears to be relatively simple, namely, the question as to whether under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act the heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to compensation in the light of the unusual facts of this case, the time frame itself and the paucity of evidence before the Trial Court have seriously complicated the matter. The appellant, in the year 1980, was employed as a supervisor with the first respondent-company. At the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 801.80 per month. He was deputed to visit Bangalore in connection with some official duties and, in the course of this visit, that too on a Sunday, he suddenly died of cardiac arrest. His widow who is the present appellant No. 1, on her behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004ACJ808
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which is the respondent No. 1 in M.V.C. No. 376 of 1999 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, (SCCH 20), (for short 'the Tribunal'), being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 28.3.2002, has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case, in brief, are:The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, namely, Kempamani and Jayanthkumar are the dependants of late C.M. Basavaraju (deceased). The deceased was working at a pub on Brigade Road, Bangalore and he died in a motor accident which took place on Varthur Main Road in front of Sunrise Bar and Restaurant, at about 11 p.m., while he was proceeding to his house on a Hero Puch (a two-wheeler) when a stray cow rushed into the middle of the road from the left side and dashed against the Hero Puch driven by the deceased....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant247; 1992(2)KarLJ437
ORDER1. The Revision Petition No. 4528 of 1991 is directed against the order, dated 10-10-1991 made on I. A. No. I in A. S. No. 1 of 199! by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramanagaram, in so far as it imposes a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 31,14,685/- in court within seven days from the date of the order failing which temporary injunction granted should automatically cease. The Revision petition No. 340 of 1992 is filed by the the defendants against the same order passed on I. A. No. I in A. S. No. 1 of 1991, dated 10-10-1991 by the learned Civil Judge, Ramanagaram. 2. Since both the revision petitions arising out of common order, they are disposed of by common order. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 4528 of 1991 is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the lower court and vice-versa in C. R. P. No. 340 of 1992. The material facts as stated in the lower court are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed an arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2008Kant205; [2009]148CompCas81(Kar); 2009(2)KarLJ268; 2008(4)KCCR2505; 2008(6)AIRKarR103(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2008 in Writ Petition No. 17135 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition.2. According to the averments in the memorandum of writ appeal, the appellant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act Appellant No. 2 is the Director of appellant No. 1 - Company. The respondent filed a false and vexatious suit as O.S. No. 100 of 1995 in the Court of First Additional Civil Judge, Chitradurga seeking recovery of certain amounts from the appellants. The appellants filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. One of the contentions raised in the written statement is that in view of the proceedings pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act}, the legal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR602; 1991(1)KarLJ316
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in M.C. No. 23 of 1989 dated 18-6-1990 by the Civil Judge, Gadag, praying therein to set aside the impugned order and to grant a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved under Sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short).2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioners were married according to Hindu rites on 18-12-1988 at Hole Alur in Ron taluk. After the marriage, they lived together for a period of one week in the first petitioner's house. But the second petitioner did not allow the 1st petitioner her husband to have any matrimonial connection with her. They started living separately from, each other after about three weeks of their marriage. They have not been able to live together and the marriage between them was completely broken and there was no possibility of reconciliation and, therefore, they filed a petition un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001]106CompCas380(Kar)
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 16606 of 1990.2. The facts in brief are :The appellant is a public limited company declared to be a sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short). The Board is considering the proposal for revival. When the revival proposals were under the consideration of BIFR some of the depositors who deposited money with the appellant-company filed applications before the Company Law Board under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board allowed the applications of the depositors holding that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act are not attracted to the proceedings under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001ACJ1655; ILR2000KAR3796; 2001(1)KarLJ316
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises from the judgment and award dated 12-7-1994 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,800 with cost and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Respondent 3 before the Claims Tribunal is the appellant in this present appeal.2. On behalf of the appellant only one and one contention has been raised that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company with reference to the death caused in the accident particularly when the deceased person was a passenger in the jeep covered by the 'Act policy'. Learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in not seeing the insurance covered jeep bearing No. MGR 7095 only for 3rd party risk, i.e., the 'Act policy' which covers only liability for third party and it does not cover the liability of the occupants i...
Tag this Judgment!