Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-15-2012
(Prayer: THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29154/1999 DATED 7-1-2002.)NAGARATHNA. J1. The Karnataka Government Insurance Department (hereinafter, referred to as the "KGID” for the sake of brevity) has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07/01/2002 passed in W.P.No.29154/99. By the said order, it has been held that the appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is an "Industry", within the meaning of Section unamended 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as the “I.D.Act", for the sake of brevity).2. The relevant facts leading up to the filing of this appeal are that the Government of Karnataka being of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the workmen and management of the KGID, by order dated 26/10/1994, referred the following points of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-01-2012
(Prayer: This Election petition filed U/S. 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951. Praying to declare that election to K R Pura Assembly constituency as Null and Void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity. As the petitioner is entitled for relief U/S. 100 [1][c] of the Representation of people Act, 1951. Since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4th respondent is illegal and improper and direct R1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against R4 as per provisions of representation of people Act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. This election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 [for short ‘the Act’], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-01-2012
(Prayer: This Election petition filed U/S. 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951. Praying to declare that election to K R Pura Assembly constituency as Null and Void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity. As the petitioner is entitled for relief U/S. 100 [1][c] of the Representation of people Act, 1951. Since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4threspondent is illegal and improper and direct R1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against R4 as per provisions of representation of people Act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. This election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 [for short ‘the Act’], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-11-2012
(Prayer: This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 27.11.2006 passed in MVC No.7158/04 on the file of Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-05), awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of petition till date of deposit.) Ajit J. Gunjal, J., 1. Both these appeals have been referred to us by an order of reference dated 19.06.2009. We presume that the matter is referred to us under Section 9 of the High Court Act and Rules. The order of reference would read as under: “ ……….I deem it appropriate to direct the registry, to place the record of these two appeals before my lord the Honorable Chief Justice, with a request to refer the matters to the Division Bench for resolving the conflict and to pronounce on the issue authoritatively………” 2. The vexed question in these t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-24-2012
Reported in : 2012(3)KCCR2160
(Prayer: This counsel for the appellant has filed the above appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No.121 of 2009.)1. A short order leading to long arguments based on innumerable authorities. The order under appeal is one under Sec.483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Sec.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, dt.10-2-2010 which reads as under:“Admit,Advertisement deferred.”2. This is an order passed in a Company Petition filed by the respondent herein under the provisions of Sec.433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) for winding up of the respondent-Company on the premise that respondent-Company is unable to pay its admitted debts.3. The Company Petition has been listed before the learned Company Judge on 3-2-2010, after issue of notice to the respondent-Company. The learned Company Judge had directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-12-2012
(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the judgment and award dated 7.10.2006 passed in MVC No.5667/2005 on the file of the XII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH No.8) awarding a compensation of Rs.29,310/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.)N. Kumar, J.1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant in MVC No.5667/2005, which is fastened on them by the Claims Tribunal.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to their rank in the claim petition.FACTS IN BRIEF3. The claimant K.C. Subramanya was traveling in Tata Victra bearing No.KA-03-B-8180 driven by its driver Prasanna Babu on 25.4.2005. At about 03.30 hours when the said vehicle came near Sundepalli on NH-7 in Kurnool Donu road, the vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-09-2012
Reported in : 2012ILR(Kar)2664
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the second respondent’s notification dated 16.3.2011 published in the State Gazette vide Annexure – C, and the fifth respondent’s consequential communication dated 13.5.2011 (Amendment) inspn vide Annexure-D and etc.) 1. In all these petitions, the challenge is raised to the State Government’s notification, dated 16.3.2011 issued under Section 1(5) of the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948 (‘ESI Act’ for short) extending the operation of the ESI Act to the educational institutions in Karnataka. 2. Sri K.V.Dhananjay, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.28326-28328/2011 submits that the State Government has not consulted the Employees State Insurance Corporation (‘ESI Corporation’ for short) and has not taken the prior approval of the Central Government before issuing the impugned notification. He submits th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-17-2012
(These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21472-497/2011 dated 30.08.2011.) N. Kumar, J. These appeals are preferred against the order of the Learned Single Judge who has quashed the sanction plan dated 16/9/2010 granted to the appellant by the Bangalore City Corporation for construction of office accommodation in her site. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition. 2. The subject-matter of this proceeding is a property bearing No.41/7, 15th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore – 03, measuring 1213 sq.mtrs. The 4th respondent made an application to the 3rd respondent for sanction of the plan to put up construction there on. A sanctioned plan was issued on 16/9/2010 for putting up construction of a multi-storied commercial complex comprising basement, ground and 3 upper floors and a terrace. On coming to know of the said sanction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-2012
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 11/09/2007 passed in MVC No.585/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Additional MACT, Madhugiri, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th September 2007, passed in MVC No.585/2000, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `1,55,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for `5,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are children of deceased Siddappa. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 11:15 A.M. on 18-05-2000, when the deceased was sit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-02-2012
(Prayer: This M.F.A. is filed u/S 173(1) of M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 26.12.2008 passed in M.V.C. No.674/2005 (old No.596/2003) on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Davangere.)1. This appeal is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Addl. M.A.C.T. and Presiding Officer, FTC-1, Davangere, in M.V.C.No.674/2005.2. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.3 before the trial court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the claimants while respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein had been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the tribunal.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred during the course of this judgment according to their ranking before the tribunal.4. The claimants-petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of their son Shivarudrappa in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at...
Tag this Judgment!