Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-27-2008
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
Decided on : Jan-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Kant77; ILR2008KAR2034; ILR2008(2)Kar2034; 2008(5)KLJ327; 2008(1)KCCR568; 2008(2)AIRKarR547; AIR2008Kar77; 2008AIHC2081(Kar)(DB)
R. Gopalakrishna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-04-2002 passed by the learned XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dismissing the suit In O.S. No. 2567/2000.2. The facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are as follows:The plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 2567/2000 praying for following reliefs:(a) Declaring that the liability of the plaintiff as issued early by mortgage of the suit schedule property to as extinguished by operation of law;(b) Consequential mandatory in function directing the defendants to return the documents deposited as per the list dated 09-09-1995;(c) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against the suit schedule property as a property mortgaged to discharge the debt due from M/s Sriram Borewells, Tarikere.(d) to award costs;(e) grant such other reliefs as deemed just and necessary In the facts and circumstances of the case.3. As p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-17-2008
Reported in : 2010ACJ27:2009(4)KCCR2539:AIR2009(3)KarR259:AIR2009NOC2717(D.B).
Arali Nagaraj, J.1. These three MFAs., have arisen from the same judgment and award dated 12.9.2005 passed in MVC No. 3847/1998 by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-2). The appellants in MPA No. 1503/2006 have sought for enhancement of the compensation awarded in their favour towards the death of one K.R Keshavamurthy as a result of Motor Vehicle accident; MFA No. 3337/2006 is filed by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ('BWSSB' in short) and MFA No. 295/2006 is filed by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBW in short), challenging the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment as to liability of these appellants (respondents before the Tribunal) to pay compensation to the claimants therein jointly with Respondent No. 7 namely 'BMP' (Respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal). Therefore, all these MFAs, are disposed of by a common judgment.2. There has been delay of 10 days in filing MPA No. 1503/2006 and 56 days in filing MFA No .3337/2006 and therefore, the respective appellants have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-28-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ908; 2009(5)KarLJ68
1. Appellant was the insurer of bus bearing registration No. K.A. 02 9900. The said bus has met with an accident on 7.05.2000, on account of which one Raja @ Raju having sustained fatal injuries, has later succumbed. His legal representatives, respondent 3 to 7 herein, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) against the appellant in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City (for short 'Tribunal') claiming compensation. The Tribunal considering the said claim petition along with another claim petition, filed by another injured person in the said accident, by its common judgment and separate award, has awarded in favour of the L.Rs of Raja @ Raju, Rs. 3,61,400/- with interest at 8% per annum, fastening the liability to pay, on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.2. Heard Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sriyuths Rajanna and Sripad V. Shastry, learned Counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-26-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ1132; ILR2008KAR4112; 2008(5)AIRKarR139; AIR2008NOC2462;
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision-making, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. The claimants-injured aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 9-7-2001 in M.V.C. Nos. 258/2000 to 265/2000 of the Prl. District Judge & MACT, Mandya (for short 'MACT'), have preferred M.F.As. 8242 to 8249/2004 respectively, for enhancement of compensation and to fasten the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation.3. The insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 5-8-2004 in M.V.C. No. 2/2003 of the Civil Judge (SR DN.) & AMACT, Channarayapatna, (for short 'MACT') in so far as it relates to fastening of liability to pay the compensation, has preferred M.F.A. No. 8647/2004.4. M.F.A. 5184/2005 is filed by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle calling in question the judgment and award dated 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-10-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2159
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants-petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP. No. 23987/2005 along with connected writ petitions.2. The appellant-petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village. They are challenging the notifications bearing Nos. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as KIAD Act) bearing No. CI/88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(1) No. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(4) No. CI 309 SPQ 2005 dated 24.9.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act' to declare the area comprised in Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village as an Industrial Area and also for acquiring the land in question for the purpose of Industrial Estate is illegal, as the same is in contravention of KIAD Act, Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, Karnataka Town and Country...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ419; AIR2009NOC1221; 2009(2)AIRKarR326
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition by the legal heir of a Judgment Debtor whose property was brought to public auction sale in execution of an Award that the Judgment Debtor had suffered under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. 1959 [for short 'the Act'] in Award No. 596/1992-93 for a sum of Rs. 98,000/- with interest which though has become final, the auction sale for execution of the said Award is nevertheless being questioned and seeking for setting aside the sale held on 23.7.1993 by filing an application under Rule 38[5] of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 [for short 'the rules'] and having failed in such an attempt not only before the authority which examined the application under Rule 38[5] of the Rules but also before the revisional authority - the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 108 of the Act who has dismissed the revision in terms of order dated 20.4.2005 passed in Revision Petition No. CMW 15 CAP 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-12-2008
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ66Kant; 2009(2)AIRKarR530(D.B)
Manjula Chellur, J.1. The appellants in W.A.I 082''07 were the workmen of the first respondent - (BPL Limited) working in one of the units wherein the unit was engaged in the manufacture of components of electronic products connected with colour television business.2. The first respondent said to have entered into transfer agreement with the second respondent M/s Sanyo BPL, Private Limited on 14.12.2005. The relevant Clause 5.1 of the Business 'Transfer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'BTA') pertaining to employees matters indicates 'parties agree that the employees of the BPL Ltd (transferor or seller) shall become the employees of the Sanyo BPL (transferee or purchaser) on and from the closing date subject to terms and conditions set out in the employment contract to be executed between such employee and the transferee/purchaser. In advance, a notice came to be displayed by transferor dated 9.12.05 advising employees to accept the employment with the second respondent. If not, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-10-2008
Reported in : ILR2008KAR3165; 2008(6)KarLJ12; (2009)ILLJ666Kant; 2008(4)KCCRSN324; 2008(4)AIRKarR377; 2008LabIC(NOC)1000(Kar)(DB)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. With consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, appeal is heard for final disposal.2. An order of termination dated 14.6.1999 issued by appellant against respondent, having been held to be bad and the direction issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court ('CGIT' for short) to reinstate him to his original post, which was modified by the learned single Judge, has been questioned in this writ appeal.BACKGROUND FACTS:3. Appellant invited applications from the eligible candidates, for making appointments to various posts in its establishment. Respondent filed application dated 19.11.1996 for the notified post of Industrial workman Grade-I (Trainee). In the application, respondent with reference to column 10, furnished the details as follows:Work experience (as on 01/11/1996) acquired after securing prescribed minimum qualification (to be supported by copies of certificates from concerned organisation).Name (o) with full Date Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-10-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR318:2009(1)KCCRSN15:2009(4)AIRKarR111
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the articles of charges dated 15.07.2004 and the enquiry repast dated 21.04.2005 and for other reliefs.2. On 05.04.1993, the respondents appointed the petitioner as a driver. On 20.12.2002, articles of charges were issued to the respondent alleging that he had secured the appointment by producing a bogus transfer certificate issued by the Government Primary School Karia at Hassan Taluk. The respondent submitted his reply to the articles of charges interalia denying the allegations made against him. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation of the respondent initiated enquiry proceedings and appointed one Sri. B.T. Nanjundaiah as enquiry officer. On 27.09.2002, the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges levied against the respondent as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority neither accepted the enquiry report nor ...
Tag this Judgment!