Karnataka Gulbarga Court August 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Halappa and Others
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
RAMESH, J (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the amount in dispute in this appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/- the appeal is maintainable in view of a Judgment rendered by a Learned single Judge of this Court in THE DIVIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. SURESH SUBRAY SHET AND OTHERS (ILR 2008 KAR 4366). He prays for overruling of the objection raised by the Registry re. maintainable of the appeal. 2. It is relevant to refer to sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as follows: “No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.” A division Bench of this Court in RAMAIAH SETTY vs. PRAKASH (1990 (2) KAR.LJ.378) has taken the view that if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000/- no appeal is maintainable in view of the above referred statutory provision. It is obvious that the Judgment in R...
Kuru Eramma Vs. Santosh and Others
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
Ramesh, J (Oral): Heard. Perused the impugned Order. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has granted permission to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are minors to sue as indigent persons. 2. The sole contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Guardian/Mother of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has properties and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the same while adjudicating the issue. 3. The Trial Court has negatived this contention by rightly relying on a Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Disha Sethi vs. Chander Mohan Sethi AIR 2008 Delhi 81. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the said Judgment. 4. In my opinion, the financial condition of the guardian or next friend or any other relative of the applicant is totally irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of determining as to whether the applicant is an indigent person as defined in Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 5. ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Mumtaz Begum and Other ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. This appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited is directed against the Judgment and award dated 14-9-2007 passed by the XII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shorapur, sitting at Shahapur in M.V.C. No. 2/2006 By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,10,700/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. to respondent No.1 for the death of her son by name Tariq Nadeem due to the injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 5-6-2002 while he was traveling as a passenger in his private jeep bearing No. KA 23/M 2981. He died on 22-7-2002. The appellant being the Insurer of the aforesaid jeep is made liable to pay the award amount. The deceased himself was the owner/insured of the said jeep. 2. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment. 3. On the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to consider all the contentions urged by the Counsel for the appellant. One of the contention...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›