Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-13-2004
Reported in : 2005ACJ635; ILR2004KAR2014; 2004(5)KarLJ479
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. These Appeals and accompanying Revision have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court to consider the question as to whether the driver holding licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle can be said to be holding an effective licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle.2. The fact matrix leading to reference lies in a narrow compass. The Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') by its common judgment and separate awards in M.V.C. No. 250/1992, M.V.C. No. 1404/1991, M.V.C. No. 1736/ 1991 and M.V.C. No. 1405/1992, dated 01.01.1999 held that in a motor accident that occurred on 26.08.1991 due to rash or negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. KA. 18-364, the KSRTC., Bus bearing No. MEF. 3499 was damaged and the claimants being passengers in the Bus were injured and hence, were entitled to compensation. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the National Insurance Company (hereinafter calle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-2004
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3892; 2004(3)KarLJ505
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. In these writ petitions important questions of law as regards the power of the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta to investigate complaints under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the procedure to be followed in such investigations, the effect of the report submitted by the Lokayukta and the consequences that flow from the declarations made under the Act arise for consideration, in addition to the question whether the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a Vice-Chancellor of a University.2. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 25339 and 25340 of 2003 is one Professor S.N. Hegde, Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. His case in brief is as under.--The petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor in September 1997 initially for a period of three years which was further extended for a period of three years in September 2000. His term was to expire in September 2003. He had put in more than 40 years of service in teac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ381; ILR2004KAR5143; 2005(1)KarLJ110
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Spl. C.C. No. 443/02 taking cognizance and issuing summons for the offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The petitioner was working as a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and during 1996-97. He was on deputation (O.O.D.) as a Manager Janatha Bazar, K.G. Road, Bangalore. One N.L. Gangadhar had complained to the Lokayukta police stating that the petitioner was demanding bribe to do an official favour. A trap was laid and the case was registered by the Lokayukta police in Crime No.3/1997 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the investigation, Lokayukta placed the matter before the Government for obtaining the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. It appears that the Government refused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-28-2004
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR1156]; ILR2004KAR1852; 2004(3)KarLJ26; (2004)IILLJ744Kant
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellants in these appeals were the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 36102 and 36103 of 1997. In these appeals the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 20th March, 1999 made by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions.2. Facts in brief leading to these writ appeals, may be stated as hereunder:The first appellant-Jayhind Engineering [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-Firm] is a registered partnership firm and it has set up one of its factories, which is known as Unit-I at Industrial Estate, Udyambag, Belgaum. In Unit-I of the Appellant-Firm, there are seven separate sections. Crankshaft Light Bay and Development Sections are the two out of the seven sections in the factory. It is claimed by the Appellant-Firm that each section is separate; the activities of each section are independent and there is no inter-dependability between each of the section and the workmen of each section are exclusive and if any one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-25-2004
Reported in : I(2005)DMC408; ILR2004KAR4311; 2004(6)KarLJ248
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the State assailing the Judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 57/1990 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bidar, dated 30.03.1998.2 The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:The marriage of deceased-Shakti Devi took place somewhere in the year 1978. Out of their wedlock two daughters and a son were born. The deceased was a B.A., B.Ed., double graduate with typewriting qualification and for sometime she was working as High School Teacher in Kalur Lingeshwar School and left the job. Whereas, the accused was running a radio repair shop at the time of the incident at Humnabad. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused-Shivaraj was addicted to alcohol and that he used to come home fully drunk, assaulting his wife and also subjecting her to cruelty. That on 13.03.1988 at about 7.00 p.m. the accused having fully drunk started quarreling. Shakti Devi having ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-05-2004
Reported in : I(2005)BC407; (2004)4CompLJ556(Karn); ILR2004KAR1155
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. These three original side appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Company Judge on 8.10.2003 in Company Application No. 771/2003 in Company Petition No. 154/2002.2. The relevant facts as stated are:New Government Electric Factory Limited ('NGEF' for short), a Government Company, called for tenders. The tenders were called for under advertisement dated 15.9.2001, proposing to sell its surplus assets which included various pieces of land, in two parts. The dispute pertains to 5th item of Part-II, viz., 40 acres and 18 guntas of freehold land, off Madras Road, near Byappanahalli, Railway Marshalling Yard, Bangalore (6 Km from M.G. Road, Bangalore). In pursuance of the Global tenders called for, number of applicants submitted the tender in respect of 40.45 acres of land and M/s. Chandra Developers Pvt. Ltd. submitted its tender offering Rs. 125 per sq.ft. After negotiation and deemed completion of the tender formalities, the said applicant agreed to pay the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-16-2004
Reported in : ILR2005KAR884
R. Gururajan, J.1. These three appeals are disposed of by this common order. All these three appeals arise out of an order passed in O.S.No.3421/ 2000 dated 8.2.2002 by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. R.F.A. No. 386/2002 is filed by Nagendra Babu. Facts' in brief are as under:One Mr. Manohar Rao Pawar, the plaintiff-respondent filed a plaint in O.S.No, 3421/2000. According to the petition averments, he is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule site. It is a portion of the larger area bearing Corporation No. 10. Properties stood in the name of late Shivaramanand Bharathi. The plaintiff purchased the same for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed dated 8.7.1987. The defendant is a stranger to the suit property. He has no manner of right, title or interest. He started a school called Kids Convent located at the North-East corner of No. 10 of the Corporation. The suit schedule property/ site and location of the school in No. 10 are shown in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-12-2004
Reported in : I(2005)ACC353; 2004ACJ1639; [2004(102)FLR697]; ILR2004KAR3119; 2004(4)KarLJ150
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. This appeal is by the insurer. According to Sri Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:(1) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the claim when the death of Shivanna had not been caused due to an accident which occurred during the course and out of the employment?(2) Whether the Commissioner was justified in supplanting the word accident to entertain the claim petition when the petition itself had mentioned it as an incident?(3) Whether Commissioner was justified in ignoring the contents of the FIR and mahazar which had clearly shown that the cause of death was not an accident and it was a suicide?2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Davanagere in Case No. WCA.CR.141 of 2000, dated 30-3-2002. In this appeal, Mr. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various interestin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR464]; ILR2004KAR2278; 2004(6)KarLJ17; (2004)IIILLJ1044Kant
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 29173-78/1999 dated 1.12.2000.2. The facts in these appeals are as follows:-The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSRTC') and the Employees Union entered into a settlement dated 27.7.1970. On the basis of this settlement, a trust was created under the registered trust deed dated 22.7.1974. The main object of the Trust is to render monetary help to members on retirement due to superannuation or medical grounds or to the nominees of the deceased member.To become a member of the Trust, it is necessary that one should be an employee of the KSRTC. The constitution of the trust provides for eight persons as trustees, out of which two shall be nominated by the KSRTC, five shall be representatives of the workmen and the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. shall be the Chairman.3. On the allegation of misappropriation of money by the then Secretary o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-12-2004
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR320]; 2005(1)KarLJ562; (2005)IILLJ419Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 16-1-1987 as per Annexure-C where domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid and also the award passed by the Labour Court dated 27-1-1999 upholding the order of punitive discharge passed by the respondent 2.2. Petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Bank on 1-71971 as a Clerk on probation. He was confirmed. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issue of a chargesheet dated 21-5-1977. Charge against the petitioner was that when he was working in the S.B. department at the Town Hall Branch on 15-3-1974, has falsified the records of the Bank and due to gross negligence, involving the Bank in a serious loss and committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.3. Petitioner filed a detailed statement of objections denying all those allegations. One D.P. Srinivasan was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. No person was appoin...
Tag this Judgment!