Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1981Kant129; ILR1981KAR560; 1981(1)KarLJ528
Vithal Rao, J.1. This appeal by K. S. R. T. C. is directed against the judgment and award dated 19th day of March, 1979, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan, in Misc. (MVC) No., 27- -of. 1077, on its file, awarding compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased C. Huchegowda in a sum of Rs. 90,000/-2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows:At about 3-00 P. M. on 26-5-1977 the deceased C. Huchegowda was travelling on the pillion of Scooter bearing No. MYS. .3345 driven by P. W.3 Shvlakumar on Honbal-Sakaleshpur road. The scooter was going slowly on the left side of the road and while it was so proceeding near Ganadahole village a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing registration No. MYF 5276 came with a high speed driven rashly and negligently by its driver from the opposite direction and hit the scooter causing, fatal injuries to the deceased, the pillion rider. The deceased Huchegowda fell down fatally injured. He was removed to the hospital at Sakaleshp...
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 : ILR2008KAR1074; LC2008(1)373; ILR2008(1)Kar1075; 2008(1)KCCRSN82; 2008(2)AIRKarR517; AIR2008NOC1286; 2008AIHC2063(Kar)
..... ' of smt. malini mallya, who has built it with borrowed money at her cost. she had joined my service as copyist and later, she secured an employment in life insurance corporation of india. ever since 1974 till now in my old age she has been serving me with exemplary devotion and sincerity. and in this occasion i must also ..... only to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, and not to other types of copyright works. those works must be made by the employee in the 'course of his employment'. those words are repeated from section 4 of the 1956 act. this means that even the copyright in a work made by the employee in his spare time will belong to the employer if the work was made for the employer's benefit and if it falls ..... entitled to claim copyright in respect of dramatic works.70. learned senior counsel in this regard relies upon several decisions to submit that having regard to the contents of para-12 of the 'will' and by virtue of application of the principle ejusdem generis, the bequest made in favour of the plaintiff will have to be confined to the objects of the same class or kind which precede the bequest in favour of the plaintiff.71. i concede tha ..... make good the gap. i tried first the clarionet and now am using; the saxophone. in south india, old time wind instruments like nadaswaram have yielded place saxophone.43. ex. p-60 is another work by dr. karanth titled and speaking of the seven prasangas and the changes brought about by him, the author says thus:44. ex.p 58 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. The respondent, G.Vasantha approached this Court, so as to assail the order passed by the appellants herein, terminating her agency. Simultaneously, an order was passed forfeiting the renewal commission earned by her. Writ Petition No. 5786/2010 filed by the respondent was partly allowed, inasmuch as, the forfeiture of renewal of commission was ordered to be set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition.2010. It is the No.5786/2010. by an order dated 10.112 instant part of the order, which has been assailed by the appellants herein, through the present writ appeal. 2. In order to contend, that the respondent has been wrongfully granted the right to the commission earned by her. reliance has been placed on Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Regulations'). Our attention was drawn to Regulation 19, which is being extracted hereunder: "19. Payment of commission on discontinuance of age...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2005)ACC585
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which is the first respondent in M.V.C. No. 376 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident 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 28th March, 2002, has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case, in brief, are respondents 1 and 2 herein, namely, Smt. Kempamani and Master Jayanthkumar are the dependants of the 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 11.00 p.m., while he was proceeding to his house on a Hero Puch (Two-wheeler) when a stray cow rushed into the middle of the road from the left side and dashed against the Hero ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. The orders at Annexure-F, H and K, dated 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008 and 3.9.2009 passed by the third respondent-Disciplinary Authority, second respondent and the first respondent, respectively, are called in question in this writ petition. By the order at Annexure-F, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Corporation imposed penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner under Rule 16(i)(d) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H. Both the orders are further confirmed by the Chairman of LIC of India under Rule 24 of the Rules, vide Annexure-K.2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Agent of LIC of India on 6.1.1987. She had produced the Transfer Certificate, bearing Admission No. 114/86-87, along with her application praying for agency. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant351; 2005(4)KarLJ292
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Corporation registered under the laws in Russia and carrying on infrastructural construction activities. The first and second respondents floated a tender-national competitive bidding for rehabilitation of the State Highways. Petitioner submitted his bid on 9-4-2003 for execution of work of rehabilitation of road from Devi Nagar to Sindhanur falling within Bellary and Raichur Districts. On 30-5-2003 petitioner's bid was accepted and was awarded contract known as contract M-11 for a price of Rs. 20,54,73,806.41. The petitioner executed the necessary agreement and furnished Bank guarantees towards performance. Respondents called upon the petitioner to commence the work from 1st of August, 2003. The period of contract was 16 months from the date of commencement of the work.2. The case of the petitioner is after commencing the work they found that the entire road link was in a very bad condition and sought for review of the approvals. They contend a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR3404; 1993(4)KarLJ544
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. This Revision Petition is by the landlord-petitioner directed against the order dated 5.2.1993, passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall, Bangalore, in H.R.C. No. 10404/92.2. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are :The petitioner filed petition under Section 21(1)(f), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961') seeking an order of eviction against the respondents.The first respondent is the Director (Maintenance), Southern Telecom Sub-Region, 125, Infantry Road, Bangalore and respondent No. 2 who is working under the first respondent is in occupation of the schedule premises.The second respondent in his objection statement among other grounds has raised a ground that the petition filed for eviction itself was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971'), as the Act 1961 h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3092; 1988(3)KarLJ327
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This appeal is by the Writ Petitioners, against the dismissal of their Writ Petition. The 1st appellant is referred as the appellant-company hereinafter, for the sake of convenience.2. The question raised pertains to the applicability of the provisions governing fixation of fair rent under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, referred as the 'R.C. Act'), to the premises leased by the appellant-company to the 1st respondent.3. Appellant-company is a company registered under Indian Companies Act and its entire share capital is owned by the Government of India. It has in possession vast extent of mining area obtained by it on mining tease from the State Government. In some of the areas it has put up structures, which have been granted by it on lease to persons like the 1st respondent. Here, the subject-matter of lease is stated, originally to be a Tailor-shop, converted into a flour-mill, though, the first respondent asserts the same to be a 'building-c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR454
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The Question of Law involved in all these Petitions are common. As such all the Petitions are clubbed together and a common Order is passed.2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these Petitions are as follows:The petitioners in all these Petitions either were or are working as Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians or Librarians in the University of Mysore, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as the University). The University apart from other subjects is also imparting education in Library Science under the auspices of Department of Library Science which has got Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The University has also got a Library Section and its staff consists of Library Assistants, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians and Librarian. The Librarian is the Head of the Section.Petitioners are all officers of Library Section. As on the date of filing the petitions the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 12349 of 1984 and 6968 of 1988 were working as Deputy Lib...
Tag this Judgment!