Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-20-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR1075; 1984(2)KarLJ354
ORDER1. This revision by the decree - holder is directed against the order dated 3-1-1979 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Udupi in Execution Case No. 174 of 1976, holding that the execution petition abated.2. The decree-holder sold some lands to one Sharadamma on 9-9-1959 by a registered sale deed for Rs.10, 000/-. Sharadamma did not pay the entire consideration. She paid Rs.6, 250/- to the decree-holder towards the consideration and thus the remaining amount of Rs.3, 750/- remained in her hands as unpaid purchase money. Sharadamma in turn sold a portion of the property (purchased by her) to the judgment-debtor K. Lakshminarayana Bhatta under a registered sale deed Exh. D.1 dated 15-2-1965 for Rs. 4,000/-. By that sale deed, she left Rs. 3,750/- in the hands of the judgment-debtor for paying it to the decree-holder towards the unpaid purchase money. The judgment-debtor in turn sold a portion of the property purchased by him to one Nerva Poojary, with a direction that he should pay Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-27-1984
Reported in : [1984(49)FLR438]; ILR1984KAR965; (1985)ILLJ173Kant
Sabhahit, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation demanded contribution with regard to the subsistence allowance of the employee, who was under suspension. That was challenged before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, by making an application under S. 75(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation resisted the petition. According to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, any amount paid to the Employee, during the subsistence of the relationship of master and servant would constitute wages.The Employees' Insurance Court raised the following issues as arising for its consideration : (1) Whether the subsistence allowance is wages as defined in the E.S.I. Act (2) What order The Employees' Insurance Court, after considering the facts and arguments addressed before it, came to the conclusion that the subsistence allowance paid to an employee during the period of suspension would not amount to wages and, in that view, the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-1984
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3018
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. The Decree holders filed a suit in O.S. No. 31/1973 on the file of the Munsiff, Muddebihal, for specific performance of an agreement to sell entered into by the judgment-debtor. The said agreement to sell was dated 16-7-1970. The Munsiff, decreed the suit for specific performance. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal. The Appellate Court modified the decree by refusing to grant specific performance but it onlyawarded the refund of the amount paid under the agreement. The Appellate Court passed a decree on 19-3-1977. The decree-holders sued out the execution to recover Rs. 12,501-75, in pursuance of the decree passed by the Appellate Court.2. The Judgment-debtor raised a contention that she was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 76) and that the amount in question amounted to a debt within the meaning of the Act of 1976 and therefore under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 the said debt stood discharged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-03-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Kant182; 1984(2)KarLJ236
..... act of 1710 (19 anne, c. 19) the marine insurance act 1745 ((19 geo. ii, c. 37) for the first time prohibited wagering policies on risks connected with british shipping. tribes was supplemented by the marine insurance act, 1.738 (28 geo, iii, c. 56).the life insurance act ..... act, the material provisions of the amending act and their effect also.28. section i deals with the title extent and commencement of the act. section 2 defines certain terms found in the act section 3 is the charging section that provides for levy of tax on totalisator, sections 4 and 5 are the machinery provisions to section 3 of the act. section 6 is the charging section that provides for levy of betting tax. the rest of the provisions are machinery provisions that carry out the purposes of the act.29. section 2 of the amending act introduces a sub-section viz., sub-section (7) to section 2 of the 1932 act ..... upon the king the duty to corporally punish all those ..... standard, or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. the nature of the right alleged to have ..... 01a really results in augmentation of taxes and revenue to the state.43. we will also assume that this plea of the petitioners ..... act, 1956, the 1932 act has continued on the statute book of the new state with its operation in the area referred to in s. 1(2) of that act.4. in 1952 the then part-b state of mysore enacted the mysore race course, licensing act, 1952 (mysore act 8 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-16-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Kant99; ILR1984KAR631
Venkatachaliah, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Petitioner seek a mandamus to the State Government to consider and dispose of their representation dt.10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'Attara Cutcherry', a Government building in which the Karnataka High Court is housed, as a 'Protected monument' under S. 4 of the said Act. The petition is filed as sequel to the Government Order No. DPAR/188/SHC/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'Attara Cutcherry' and for the construction of a new High Court Building on the site. This petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Swami, J.2. Petitioners in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring sour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-1984
Reported in : [1985]58CompCas191(Kar)
Sabhahit, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and awards made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in M.V.C. Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 144 and 175 of 1979, dated June 19, 1982. 2. The brief facts are these : A tourist bus No. MED 2844 and a goods vehicle bearing No. MYD 2462 were involved in an accident that occurred on April 11, 1979, at about 9-30 p.m. on Bangalore Mysore road near Kanmanike village. The bus was coming from Mysore side whereas the truck was going towards Mysore side. They collided on the road as the result of which 7 persons travelling in the truck died. The legal heirs of the deceased persons instituted seven claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal as M.V.C. Nos. 91 to 96 and 175 of 1979 claiming compensation from respondents. 3. M.V.C. No. 144 of 1979 is by the truck owner. He claimed compensation for damages to the truck. The respondents are the owner, driver and insurer of the bus and also of the truck....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-04-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR683; 1984(2)KarLJ307
ORDERMlimath, CJ.1. This Writ Petition has come before the Division Bench on a reference made by Justice Chandrakantharaj Urs on the ground that there appears to be conflict between the decision of this Court reported in Mahabaleswar Pandari-nathNaik-v.-State of Karnataka & Others 1 and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Suresh Koshy-v.-University of Kerala 2.2. The Petitioner was a Conductor in the employment of Karnataka State Road TransportCorporation. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him and he was ultimatelydismissed from service by an Order dated 3-12-1979, Annexure-E, passed by the third respondent. The Petitioner has challenged the said order in this Writ Petition on various grounds and has further prayed for a direction to therespondent to reinstate him in service as a Conductor and to grant him all consequential benefits flowingthere from.3. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri B.M. Chan-drashekharaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. to th...
Tag this Judgment!