Karnataka Court December 2003 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.
P. Vittal Bhandary Vs. Sathish Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1179
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The appellant is the claimant-injured in M.V.C. No. 93 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Puttur, D.K. (for short 'the M.A.C.T.') filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In the claim petition, the appellant had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 from the respondents for personal injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 8.3.1996 involving the motor vehicle owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 3. M.A.C.T. awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,75,000 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment/deposit. The appellant not being-satisfied with the quantum of compensation, has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Act.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:The appellant it is said was a businessman running a grocery shop at Marasanige village in Mudigere talu...
Sreedevi Vs. Ramesh S. Bagi and anr.
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 f...
Smt. Indira Gandhi Primary Education Society, Ckr Teachers Training Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ482
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is an Education Society. Assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 26th February, 2003 vide Annexure-D and the order passed by the second respondent dated 28th May, 2003 vide Annexure-E, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent to grant recognition in respect of the petitioner-Society to run the elementary course.2. The petitioner claiming to be a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, has been running the Teachers' Education Institution from the academic year 1969-70 in pursuance of the permission granted by the Competent Authority dated 18th December, 1969 vide Annexure-A.3. When things stood thus, in view of the amendment brought to the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act 73 of 1993) (hereinafter called as 'NCTE Act, 1993'), which came into effec...
B. Prakash Chand Vs. S.V. Gyanchand Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1387; 2004(2)KarLJ504
ORDER1. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord in regard to a shop premises measuring more than 14 sq. mtr. situated at Sakleshpur ('Premises' for short). The landlord filed H.R.C.No. 3 of 1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sakleshpur for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1) provisos (a), (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('old Act' for short). After evidence, the said petition was allowed under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the old Act, by order dated 18-8-2000 and the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord within one month.2. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant (petitioner herein) filed a revision petition under Section 50(2) of the old Act before the District Judge, Hassan on 31-8-2000 registered as H.R.C.R.P. No. 19 of 2000.3. During the pendency of the said revision proceedings, the old Act was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('new Act' for short). Sections 1, 3 a...
Smt. Susheela Devi and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1214
A.M. Farooq, J. 1. The appellants are petitioners in W P Nos. 1565 of 2003 to 1572 of 2003. They are aggrieved by the dismissal of their Writ Petitions by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 17/3/2003 dismissing their Writ Petitions and directing the first petitioner, who is not an appellant, to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The appellants along with one Narayana Setty filed Writ Petitions seeking quashing of the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the lands and for quashing the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and for declaring that the establishment of Cauvery IV Stage Sewerage Water Cleaning Workshop Unit put up by the respondents as contrary to Comprehensive Development Plan and Zoning Regulations issued under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act as illegal and void and to restrain the respondents from establishing the Water Sewerage Plant. 3. All these appellants filed their Writ Petitions in common with the Writ Petition of Nar...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC6; 2005ACJ2002; ILR2004KAR1608
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. These appeals arise out of two different but identical orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, whereby an additional issue touching the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Claims Petitions has been answered in favour of the claimants and against the appellants in these appeals.2. It is not in our view necessary to set out the factual background in which the respondents have filed two different claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking refund of the excess fare charges allegedly recovered from them. All that need be said is that in the claim petitions filed before the Tribunal, the appellant herein raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such claim petitions. The Tribunal accordingly framed an issue to the following effect in both the claim petitions.'Has this Tribunal no jurisdiction to try this application under Section 26 of the Indian. Railways Act of 1890'.By two identical orders both dt.27.2....
Krishnakudva and anr. Vs. Ganapathy Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR892
ORDER 7 RULE 11 (c) AND (d) -- INHERENT POWERS -- To revise its own order -- Can be done if it is shown that the earlier order passed is a result of a mistake on the part of the Court itself or that it was obtained, by misrepresentation or fraud.(C) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (CENTRAL ACT NO. 5 OF 1908) -- ...
Siddaramappa and ors. Vs. Smt. Gouravva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant230; ILR2004KAR3611
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendants appeal. For the purpose of brevity, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the suit. The facts in brief are as under :--2. The case of the plaintiff is, One Mallappa S/o Fakirappa Sajjan alias Tali was the propositus. He died leaving behind two sons by name Basavanneppa and Sidramappa. Those two brothers with their father constituted an undivided Hindu family. After the death of Mallappa, the brothers effected a partition of all the joint family properties. The property which fell to the share of Basavanneppa are shown in the schedule 'A' to the plaint and the property which fell to Sidramappa was shown as schedule 'B' properties. The plaintiff-Smt. Gourawa is the legally wedded wife of Basavanneppa. She halls from Bannikoppa Village of Shirhatti Taluk. Basavanneppa died on 29-8-1992. There were no issues out of the wed lock and, therefore, on the death of Basavanappa, the plaintiff succeeded to all his properties as a sole legal heir...
S.T. Meenakshi Vs. T. Thimmappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR703
Ramesh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal by the creditor is directed against the order dated 31.8.2002 passed on an application filed in I.C.No. 27/2000 by the Official Receiver under Section 53 read with Section 4 and 5 of theProvincial Insolvency Act, 1920 ('the Act' for short) for annulling of the two sale-deeds dated 19.12.1998 and 23.7.1999 executed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. 3. The order impugned reads thus: 'The receiver filed application on 14.6.2002 for annulment of sale-deeds after the applications filed by applicant-Laxminarasamma on 15.2.2002. The application dated 14.6.2002 not brought to the notice when arguing on application. So now, cannot be corrected the observations made in order.' 4. The Court below has disposed of the application summarily.The impugned order is not tenable in law as it is not in conformitywith Section 53 of the Act. It is not even a speaking order. It is relevantto notice Section 53 of the...
Smt. Lakshmamma Vs. K.S. Sheshanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR407; 2004(2)KarLJ274
Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The defendant in O.S.No. 2930/2001 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has filed this appeal challenging the order passed on I.A.No. II dated 7.9.2001.2. The plaintiff namely K.S. Sheshanna has filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 5.12.1999. According to him, the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs and has executed the said agreement of sale dated 5.12.1999 receiving an advance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is contended that though the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant has failed to perform her part of the obligation and has been making attempts to alienate the suit property.3. The appellant-defendant has filed the written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of advance as contended by the plaintiff. It is her case that plaintiff being her elder brother, was managin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »