Karnataka Court June 1971 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.
M. Basavalingaiah and anr. Vs. T.P. Papanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant63; AIR1972Mys63; (1971)2MysLJ351
Chandrashekhar, J.1. Can a father maintain a petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the death of his son in an automobile accident, when the mother is alive? That is the question that arises for determination in this appeal.2. One Basavalingaiah died as a result of an automobile accident in Davangere City on 16-12-1965. He was survived by his mother and his father. On 10-2-1966 the father (appellant 1) made a petition under S, 110-A of the Act before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming compensation. More than a year later, i.e., on February, 1967, he made an application, I.A.IV, to implead the mother of the deceased as the second petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, namely, the owner of the motor vehicle involved in that accident, the Insurance Company (wherein that vehicle was insured) and the driver of that vehicle (who...
John Augustine Peter Mirande and anr. Vs. N. Datha Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant365; AIR1971Mys365; (1971)2MysLJ204
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. Petitioners in the revision petition are the tenants. Respondent is the landlord. Respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioners under Section 21 (1) (c), (h) and (1) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the tenants. The case of the landlord was that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required for his own occupation, for reconstruction and also on the ground that the tenants without the consent of the landlord has erected a permanent structure. The claim arising under Section 21 (1) (c) and (i) does not arise for consideration before this Court, inasmuch as, that even in the trial court the claim made under Section 21 (1) (c) has been given up and before this Court the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has clearly stated that he is not making any case based under Section 21 (1) (i) of the Act. The only claim that he is making is that he wants the premises for his reasonable a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›