Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004ACJ850; ILR2004KAR375
S.B. Majage, J.1. The appellant, who was claimant before the Additional M.A.C.T. at Sagar in M.V. C.No. 76/1995, has approached this Court since his claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the respondents came to be dismissed on 27.4.2001.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is submitted for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the claimant failed to prove that there was an accident to him by motor cycle and also in not awarding compensation to him besides in holding that the Insurance Company has proved that it is not liable to pay compensation after holding that the rider had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. On the other hand, it is submitted for the Insurance Company that the finding on negligence is proper and correct and that the policy of insurance ceased to be effective as the transfer of the vehicle by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 was not informed and, at any rate, as respondent No. 1 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant267; AIR1960Mys267
Iqbal Husain, J.(1) Though the facts of this appeal are simple, a few interesting questions of law are raised. Chatram Puttappa Sons is a joint Hindu family firm doing business as nut and Mandy merchants at Bangarpet., Kolar District. They are the appellants before this Court. The respondents are some of their creditors. The latter filed an application under the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the Mysore Insolvency Act to adjudge the appellants as insolvents on the ground that the respondent's are unable to pay their debts and have committed acts of insolvency. Though in the petition filed by the respondents several acts of insolvency are alleged, they confine their attention to only one both before the District Judge, Bangalore, as well as before this Court, viz. that they are unable to pay their debts and have given notice of suspension of payment.(2) The appellants sent a registered notice to several of their creditors as per Exhibit P. 4 dated 24-6-1955 that they are unable to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2000)ACC392; 2000ACJ1039; AIR2000Kant202; ILR2000KAR886; 2000(2)KarLJ207
Mohamed Anwar, J. Appellant is the insurer of the offending jeep vehicle bearing No. CTA 5241 of respondent 4 (R-4). The judgment and award dated 17-10-1996 of the M.A.C.T., Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, holding the appellant also liable to pay 50% of the compensation to the claimants has been challenged by it on the' ground that it is not liable in law to pay the same since the 'Act only policy of insurance' issued by it in respect of the said private jeep vehicle did not cover the risk to the passengers travelling therein, as the deceased victim Ganapathi Adiga was an occupant thereof when it met with accident.2. A few relevant facts, as justifiably found proved by the Tribunal,are as stated under:On 7-10-1992, the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the said jeep vehicle from Udupi to Kundapura in the District of Dakshina Kannada. It was being driven in high speed by its owner R-4. It was racing behind the goods truck bearing registration No. MIR 9247 which was transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR435
Saldanha, J. 1. Heard the appellant's learned Counsel. This is an Appeal where, it is incumbent that this Court will have to clarify a rather delicate and unusual situation that is not unfamiliar before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. The issue that is canvassed is with regard to the liability of the appellants - Insurance Company for payment of compensation awarded to the claimant who was a Bus Conductor and who died as a result of being run over by a Tempo on 26.6.1983 at Pandavapura. The claimant is the widow of the deceased who was a Bus Conductor and who had got down from his vehicle and was proceeding towards the Town Hall for some refreshments. The Tempo is alleged to have been driven at a high speed and had knocked down the deceased who died as a result of the injuries sustained. A claim petition was preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, by the widow in which she cited the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., as respondent-4 in its capac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1996)ACC62; 1996ACJ7; ILR1995KAR2302; 1995(4)KarLJ346
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 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant67; AIR1964Mys67; ILR1963KAR788; (1963)2MysLJ122
N. Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. I agree with the conclusions arrayed at by my learned brother Mir Iqbal Husain, J., on all the questions arising in this case and with the proposed order dismissing the petition. As some of the points involved are of great importance, I am adding the following observations:2. The question of jurisdiction of the Court in which the petition was filed is one of some difficulty. It may also be mentioned that the petition itself does not contain any averment as to the place of residence of either party with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioner (husband) is, however, described as residing at Vaniambadi in North Arcot District, Madras State, and Respondent-I (wife) is stated to be a school mistress in Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, to which the petition was present.3. Under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act a petition for dissolution of marriage has to be present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant299; AIR1960Mys299; ILR1959KAR495
Hegde, J.(1) The appellant (plaintiff) sued the respondent (defendant) her husband to recover a sum of Rs. 4,320/- as arrears of 6 years' past maintenance. She also prayed for a decree for future maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. They were married about 18 years prior to the suit. For some time they lived cordially. The appellant has no issued. In about 1942-43, the respondent took a second wife. It is now admitted that even after the second marriage, the appellant lived with her husband for about two years. Ever since then she has been living separately with her parents. According to the appellant, she was treated cruelly by her husband; she was assaulted by him a number of times; and hence it was not possible for her to live with him. She further pleads that he deserted her.On the basis of these allegations, she claimed separate maintenance as mentioned above. She also contends that she is entitled to the separate maintenance claimed in view of section 2(4) of the Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 WP No.36761/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF JANUARY2017PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND R THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.36761/2014 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: D.G. MANJUNATH S/O LATE GANDEPPA AGED ABOUT62YEARS TDO (RETIRED) DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DAVANGERE RESIDING AT NO.144 ANNAPOORNA NILAYA5H CROSS, J.C.R. LAYOUT CHITRADURGA-577 501 PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE) AND:1. M.S. BUILDING2 3. DAVANAGERE-577 002 ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-6 THE OFFICE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BANGALORE-560 001 DR. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR2WP No.36761/2014 4. T.H.VASANTH AGED ABOUT45YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAPPA HADADI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 002 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. MALLIKARJUNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 WP No.23485/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF NOVEMBER2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.23485/2015 (GM-KLA) R BETWEEN: SRI SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHAPPA AGE:53. YEARS, OCC: SHIFT OPERATOR OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M R S (MAIN RECEIVING STATION) KPTCL, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA PRESENTLY R/ AT MRS COLONY QUARTERS NO.26, VIDYANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA 577 201 (BY SRI P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S RAVI B.NAIK ASSOCIATES) AND:1. ...PETITIONER KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KAVERI BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADMN AND HRD KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR ...RESPONDENTS2 (BY SRI SUSHEN.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI G.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 2 WP No.23485/2015 WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R INDEX OF ORDER Sl. No.Description Page Nos. Cause title 4-28 I Brief facts of the case 29-80 (a) W.P. No.21468/2016, 29-38 W.P. No.19386/2016 38-43 (b) W.P. No.23622/2016, 43-51 (c) W.P. No.16222/2017, 51-56 (d) W.P. No.16223/2017, 56-59 (e) W.P. No.16697/2017, 59-61 (f) W.P. No.16703/2017, 61-63 (g) W.P. No.16862/2017, 63-65 (h) W.P. No.28341/2017, 65-66 (i) W.P. No.108010/2017 66-69 (j) W.P. No.108689/2017, 69-71 (k) W.P. No.108690/2017, 71-72 (l) W.P. No.22851/2018, 72-75 (m) W.P. No.9147/2019 75-77 (n) W.P. No.18042/2019 77-80 (o) 2 Objections filed by the respondent 80-88 II No.1/State of Karnataka in W.P. No.19386/2016 Objections filed by the 2nd 88-90 III respondent/ACB in WP1622317 and WP1669717 Statement of legal submissions of 90-110 Karnataka Lokayukta in W.P. No.IV193862016, W.P. No.23622/2016, 58252-58256/2017, 3109-113/2018, 4319-4328/2018 and 47109/2018 Arguments advanced by Sri Ravi B. 111-113 Naik, learned senior counsel for Sri V K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!