Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1994
Reported in : II(1994)ACC451
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. This Appeal is by the appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench on 28.8.1992 in O.A. No. 85/1992 holding that the application of the appellant for compensation under Section 13-A(II) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act ('the Act for short) was not maintainable.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.3. The case of the appellant is that when he was about to board the Bangalore Hyderabad Express Train, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work, suddenly fell on the train and thereafter on him, causing grievous injuries to him. Therefore, he approached the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the provisions of Section 13-A(II) of the Act. The Tribunal considering the maintainability of the application under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, (Section 124 of the present Act, 1989), held that the application was not maintainable and directed the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-26-1994
Reported in : I(1995)ACC125
R. Ramadkrishana, J.1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act'). Notice was ordered for the respondent and she is represented.2. By taking consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is heard on its merits and the following order is passed.3. An important question that requires determination in this appeal is:Whether the maxim 'Action Personalis Moritur Cum Persona' is applicable to claims arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?4. For proper appreciation of this question the brief facts of the case presented is as follows:One Doraswamy who claimed to be a workman in the estate owned by the appellant has filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kodagu for the employment injury said to have been sustained on 21.2.1983 when he was employed by the appellant. When this application was pending the said Doraswamy died a natural death. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-26-1994
Reported in : 1995ACJ49; [1995(70)FLR211]; ILR1994KAR3111; 1994(4)KarLJ610; (1995)ILLJ695Kant
R. Ramakrishna, J. 1. This Appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act'). Notice was ordered for the respondent and she is represented. 2. By taking consent of the learned Advocates, the Appeal is heard on its merits and the following Order is passed. 3. An important question that requires determination in this Appeal is : 'Whether the maxim 'Actionn Personalis Moritur Cum Persona' is applicable to claims arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923'? 4. For proper appreciation of this question the brief facts of the case presented is as follows : One Doreswamy who claimed to be a workmen in the estate owned by the appellant has filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kodagu for the employment injury said to have been sustained on 21.2.1983 when he was employed by the appellant. When this application was pending the said Doreswamy died a natural ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1994
Reported in : 1994ACJ1151; AIR1995Kant223; ILR1994KAR486; 1994(1)KarLJ335
ORDER1. This appeal is by the appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench on 28-8-1992 in O.A. No. 85/1992 holding that the application of the appellant for compensation under Section 13A(II) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act ('the Act' for short) was not maintainable.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. 3. The case of the appellant is that when he was about to board the Bangalore-Hyderabad Express Train, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work, suddenly fell on the train and thereafter on him causing grievous injuries to him. Therefore, he approached the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the provisions of Section 13A(II)of the Act. The Tribunal considering the maintainability of the application under S. 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, (Section 124 of the( present Act, 1989), held that the application was not maintainable and directed the appellant to seek remedy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-25-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR2603; 1994(4)KarLJ702
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. Can a delinquent employee facing a Domestic Enquiry participate in any such Enquiry, without demur and thereby take a chance of getting a favourable verdict, but finding that the verdict has gone against him, turn round and question the competence of the Authority initiating the Enquiry, is the short but crucial Question that falls for Consideration in this Appeal. A few facts relevant to the case need to be stated before proceeding any further:The appellant is an Executive Engineer in the employment of the Mysore University. On the basis of a specific complaint made by one Dr. K. Mahadev, a Member of the University Senate and the Syndicate, a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of misappropriation and shortage of cement and steel from the Engineering Division of the University was made. The enquiry showed that the allegations were prima facie correct based on which the Syndicate directed the framing of charges against the appellant and two others, one of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-30-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3018; 1995(1)KarLJ15
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of dismissal passed against him by the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Respondent-Company and that passed by the Board of Directors dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the same. The petitioner has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate him against the post originally held by him with continuity of service and payment of salary and allowances etc.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Petition may be stated first:The petitioner was at the relevant time working as the Joint General Manager of H.M.T. Factory-I and II at Bangalore. Being qualified to get a motor car advance for the purchase of a Motor Car, the petitioner made a request for such an advance, which request was granted and a loan of Rs. 45,000/- sanctioned by the competent authority in his favour. The petitioner dr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-20-1994
Reported in : ILR1995KAR10; 1995(4)KarLJ118
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Uttara Kannada, Karwar dated 17.9.1980, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner with costs.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner fully and perused the records of the case.3. This C.R.P, was filed as Writ Petition in the first instance. Thereafter, by the order dated 16.6.1987 the Writ Petition came to be converted to C.R.P. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are represented by their Counsel, Respondents 3 & 4, are represented by the Government Advocate.4. It is not in dispute in this case that the Management of the respondent No. 1 is taken over by the respondent No. 3 and it is respondent No, 3 who is contesting this Petition. Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 remained absent The Government Advocate representing respondents 3 and 4 also remained absent. This Court adjourned the case more than once to enable the Government Advocate to submit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-09-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR1370; 1994(5)KarLJ63
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant - Airbus Industrie is a groupment D'lnterest created under the Laws of France engaged in the business of manufacturing passenger and cargo aircraft since 1969. The first aircraft manufactured by them was called Airbus A-300, The second aircraft called A-320 was introduced later and was supplied to various renowned Airlines all over the world.2. Respondent No. 10, the Indian Airlines Corporation purchased about 20 aircrafts A-320. One such aircraft purchased by respondent No. 10 was an aircraft bearing registration VT-EPN. On 14.2.1990 this aircraft bearing registration VT-EPN was a schedule passenger flight from Bombay to Bangalore being flight No. IC 605. In the course of this flight while attempting to land at Bangalore Air Port at 13-03 hours contacted ground approximately 2,300 feet before the beginning of runway No. 09 within the boundary of Golf Association and immediately thereafter hit the embankment which was the boundary wall of the Golf Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-17-1994
Reported in : [1995]82CompCas447(Kar)
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. Common procedural questions arise for our consideration in O.S.A. No. 19 of 1993 and other company petitions. In company petitions, the learned single judge, Rajendra Babu J. has referred the following two questions for our decision. (1) What is the scope of enquiry or hearing (2) The nature or contents of the order and whether the usual practice of this court when matters are admitted and interim orders are granted no detailed reasons are set forth, applicable 2. As the common reference order shows these questions pertain to the stage prior to the admission and advertisement of the company petition moved by the petitioning creditor seeking an order for winding-up the respondent-company on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts as envisaged by section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. In O.S.A. No. 19 of 1993, also these procedural questions squarely arise for our consideration. Therefore, they were all heard together and are being disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR2947; 1995(1)KarLJ67
Ramakrishna, J. 1. The facts and the circumstances and the Question of Law arising in these two Appeals being common, we dispose of them by the following Common Order, referring to the averments stated in W.A.No. 745 of 1994.2. For the sake of convenience, we go by the ranks of the parties in this Appeal.3. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of these Appeals are as follows:-The appellant in both the Appeals is a Society called 'State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association', Barline Road, Tumkur, registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (the Act for short), the main object of which being to distribute sites to its members by acquiring certain lands. On the recommendation of the District and State Level Acquisition Committee, respondent-1 State acquired in the year 1987 15 acres of land in Sy.No. 49/1 of Maralur village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk under the Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisit...
Tag this Judgment!