Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-18-2003
Reported in : 2004ACJ850; ILR2004KAR375
s.b. majage, j.1. the appellant, who was claimant before the additional m.a.c.t. at sagar in m.v. c.no. 76/1995, has approached this court since his claim petition seeking compensation of rs. 1,60,000/- from the respondents came to be dismissed on 27.4.2001.2. heard the learned counsel for the parties. it is submitted for the claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in holding that the claimant failed to prove that there was an accident to him by motor cycle and also in not awarding compensation to him besides in holding that the insurance company has proved that it is not liable to pay compensation after holding that the rider had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. on the other hand, it is submitted for the insurance company that the finding on negligence is proper and correct and that the policy of insurance ceased to be effective as the transfer of the vehicle by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 1 was not informed and, at any rate, as respondent no. 1 had no valid and effective driving licence, the tribunal has rightly not fastened liability with it (insurance company). perused the records carefully.3. in brief, the case of the claimant is that, on 26.4.1991, when he was proceeding on the left side on avenahalli heggodu road, the first respondent came on motor cycle bearing no. meg-8872 driving it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him causing injuries and hence, he is entitled to compensation as claimed. the first respondent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-24-2003
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3558
m.s. rajendra prasad, j.1. this criminal appeal, by the state, filed under section 378, cr.p.c., is directed against the judgment dated 9-12-1997, passed in sc no. 20/ 1995, on the file of the principal sessions judge, gulbarga, wherein the learned single judge had acquitted the accused-respondent for an offence under section 302, ipc, questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment.2. we have heard the arguments of sri bhavani singh, the learned addl. spp appearing on behalf of the state and sri r. b. deshpande, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent.3. the parties in the course of this judgment are referred to with reference to their ranking as held in the trial court for the purpose of convenience.4. sri bhavani singh, learned addl. spp, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the trial court is illegal and invalid. the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence and the learned single judge without proper appreciation of the evidence on record had arrived at a wrong conclusion and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. hence, the learned addl. spp prayed for allowing the appeal.5. on the contrary, sri r. b. deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the trial court impugned under the appeal is legal and valid. the prosecution had utterly failed to bring home the guilt of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-23-2003
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3605
k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the first respondent and the subject matter in these appeals are different but the appellant is the same. the facts and the questions of law involved are similar. common evidence is let-in in both the cases. apart from the two appeals now under consideration, the appellant had filed rsa 206/97 and rsa 207/97. all these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 21/87 and o.s. no. 59/86 on the file of munsiff kustagi.2. for convenient discussion, the respondents hereinafter called plaintiffs and the appellant as defendant.3. the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction, in alternative seek relief of possession of the suit property from the appellant/defendant. the plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owners of the suit property and allege that the defendant is illegally interfering with their possession and enjoyment. hence, the suit.4. the defendant sets up a counter claim in both the suits seek relief of specific performance on the strength of agreement of sale ex.d.1 executed by the plaintiff in each of the suit. the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs allowed the counter claim, directed execution of sale deed by receiving balance of consideration. the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgments and decrees preferred ra 29/90 and ra 30/90 on the file of civil judge, senior division, koppal. the appeals were allowed. the judgment and decree for specific performance granted in favour of the first .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-24-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Kant417; 2006(2)CTLJ91(Kar)
k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in r.a. no. 66/99 on the file of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), hubli, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 483/96 on the file of the iii addl. civil judge (jr. dn.), hubli.2. the appellant is the defendant. the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant at ex.d.13 has been revoked and that the defendant does not have the authority of agency to represent the plaintiff under the power of attorney. further, seek an injunction against the defendant not to deal with the suit property.3. plaintiff was employed in indian army. he was allotted a site. the plaintiff executed power of attorney ex.d.13 in favour of defendant to attend to the construction of the building on the suit site and thereafter its management. it is said that defendant misusing the power of attorney indulged in excessive and reckless borrowings fastening unreasonable liabilities on the plaintiff. therefore seek a relief declaration with a consequential relief of injunction against the defendant not to deal with the suit property any more. the defendant contends that he has borrowed loans in his individual capacity and also borrowed loans on the strength of power of attorney from several persons and financial institutions encumbering the suit property. the defendant contends that, apart from the private loan of rs. 5 lakhs incurred, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-26-2003
Reported in : 124CompCas144(Kar)
s.r. nayak, j.1. both the above miscellaneous first appeals are directed against the same judgment dated november 22, 2002, passed in a. c. no. 45 of 1999 on the file of the vi addl. city civil judge, bangalore city (cch no. 11). by the order under appeals, the court below has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, for short 'the act' and refused to grant a measure of interim protection under section 9 of the act and thereby vacating the order of injunction restraining the respondents from encashment of bank guarantee bearing nos. 97/444 and 97/445.2. the case of the appellant is as follows :3. the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of telecom equipment. the first respondent and another company by the name of national telecom of india ltd. are engaged in a similar line of business. the appellant-company manufactures products which are indigenously developed by m/s. measurements and controls, a sister concern of the appellant. the telecom equipment manufactured by the appellant are used by the department of telecommunications (dot). the dot had floated tenders in respect of certain terminals. the first respondent bid for the said tenders and received orders for the supply of the following products. (a) 2/34 mb skip mux, (b) 2/34 mb optimux and (c) 2/140 mb optimux 4. the first respondent after securing the said order, approached the appellant for supply of the said products of dot on january 12, 1998. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-11-2003
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC666
ram mohan reddy, j.1. the claimant-injured, a minor girl aged 4 years represented by her natural guardian father, has preferred this appeal under section 173(1) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the act'), being aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 7.2.2002 passed in m.v.c. no. 1609 of 1998 on the file of the court of the addl. m.a.c.t. and c.j. (sr. dn.) and asstt. sessions judge, athani (for short 'the m.a.c.t.').2. the fact that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 14.4.1998 involving a motor vehicle belonging to the respondent no. 1, insured with the respondent no. 2 and driven by the respondent no. 3, is not in dispute. the finding of the m.a.c.t. that the motor vehicle involved in the accident was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no. 3 had caused the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant is not in controversy and, therefore,, there is no need for this court to review the said finding. the appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation awarded by the m.a.c.t. as inadequate, unjust and not within the contemplation of the act.3. ms. mithuna, the learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the finding of the m.a.c.t. sought to contend that award of compensation of rs. 79,924 was meagre having regard to the fact that both legs of the child were grievously injured resulting in 60 per cent disability to the left leg and 30 per cent disability to the right leg; was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-2003
Reported in : AIR2003Kant238; 2003(5)KarLJ367
orderh. rangavittalachar, j.1. the deputy commissioner for food & civil supplies, davangere - 2nd respondent herein, by a notification dated 16-3-1999, invited applications for grant of authorization to run a fair price depot in neelagunda village, harapanahally taluk. petitioner herein among others, had filed his applications. the petitioner was selected and was granted the authorisation. 2. the 4th respondent herein who is the president of the vyavasaya seva sahakara bank ltd. challenged the said grant of authorisation by filing an appeal under rule 17(1) of the karnataka essential commodities (public distribution system) control order 1992 (referred to as pds order for brevity) before the commissioner for food & civil supplies. the appellate authority has set aside the order of the deputy commissioner holding that the grant of authorisation will have the effect of depriving some of the cards allotted to the 4th respondent as they were transferred to the petitioner. besides, it was also observed that the petitioner did not possess the requisite funds or was in possession of a shop. this order is questioned in this petition. 3. the 'main ground of attack by the petitioner is that against the orders passed by the deputy commissioner the 4th respondent could not have maintained an appeal under rule 17 of the pds rules. in other words, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. in support of the said contention, learned counsel read to me rule 17 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-12-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ360
orderh.l. dattu, j.1. since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. 2. initially petitioners were appointed as plantation supervisors by the second respondent-karnataka pulpwood limited, on a consolidated salary of rs. 400/-. the appointment was purely temporary and for a period of six months only. their appointment as plantation supervisors was continued by the second respondent authority by their order made on 27-11-1987 and that was again for a period of six months only. by a subsequent order dated 7-3-1988, petitioners were appointed by the second respondent company as assistant plantation supervisors on a consolidated salary of rs. 690/- per month. while working as assistant plantation supervisors, it appears, some of the petitioners were also asked to discharge the duties of in charge plantation supervisors and assistant plantation superintendents. 3. petitioners assert that in spite of the fact that they were working as assistant plantation supervisors, their services were regularised as forest guards. on a wrong assumption that the second respondent along with its personnel has merged with the karnataka forest development corporation limited, the second respondent has issued one more appointment order appointing the petitioners herein as assistant plantation superintendents. 4. facts stated in the petition are not very clear. therefore, let me notice how the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-16-2003
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1521
ordern.k. patil, j. 1. the petitioners who are cl-1 licence holders assailing the legality and validity of the impugned rules dated 30.6.2003 vide annexure-g have presented these writ petitions. further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that so far as prayers b and c are concerned, those two prayers may be dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the order passed by the apex court in (state of karnataka and anr. v. k.v. amarnath and ors. civil petition no. 3610/1998 dd 30.8.03). the submissions made by the learned counsel is placed on record. prayers (b) &(c) are accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.2. now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confines these petitions so far as prayer (a) is concerned as stated supra. these petitioners claiming to be cl-1 licencee challenged the constitutional validity of the rules notified in the official gazette dated 30.6.2003 vide annexures a1 to a6, respectively thereby amending the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, karnataka excise (.,) is made 'sole distributor' in liquor trade. further the case of the petitioners is that the system prevalent in the liquor trade is that the petitioner (cl-1 licencee) obtained transport permits from the excise department in respect of the products of the particular manufacturers and thereafter the petitioner sell the said products to a retailer (cl-2 licencee) and/or to a bar (cl-9 licencee), and other .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-22-2003
Reported in : AIR2003Kant484; I(2005)BC74
ordern.k. patil, j.1. in these petitions, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring that the seizure of vehicles bearing no. ka-20/9036 and ka-20/c/9036, is illegal and also further sought for a direction, directing the respondents to deliver the vehicle bearing no. ka-20/9036 and ka-20/c/ 9036 to the petitioner forthwith. he has further sought for a direction, directing the respondents to re-schedule the loan by receiving rs. two lakhs and to waive the interest for the period during which the vehicles were in illegal custody of the respondent-bank.2. it is hot in dispute that the petitioner has obtained loan from the first respondent -- the south canara district central cooperative bank ltd. mangalbre (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank'), for purchasing the two vehicles bearing no. ka-20/9036 and ka-20/c/9036 and hypothecated both the vehicles in favour of the bank authorities and executed an agreement to that effect. but due to financial constrains, he could not maintain the payment of instalments. when the petitioner defaulted for payment of regular instalment, the bank has seized the vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. feeling aggrieved by the seizure of vehicles, as stated above, and other relief as stated supra, the petitioner has presented these petitions.3. it is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the sanction order, the petitioner has complied with the hypothecation of the vehicles and .....Tag this Judgment!