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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gangarasaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1846; ILR2004KAR413
Ram Mohan Reddy, J 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'), is filed by the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, calling in question the Judgment and award dated 30.5.2003 passed in MVC No. 259/2000 on the file of the Court of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bangalore Rural District (for short the 'MACT').2. The facts of the case are that:On 26.4.2000 at about 6.30 a.m. near Honnenahalli Channakatte Dabaspet Shivaganga road, the claimant was standing on the left side of the road and at that time the passenger tempo bearing registration No. KA-14/5029 came from Shivaganga towards Dabaspet driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the driver and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries like fracture of right pattela, fracture of right humorous, fracture of left femur, fracture of nasal bone and to other parts of the body. The claimant is said to be an...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Y.N.R. Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ193
ORDER1. The matter is finally heard by consent and disposed of by this order. Respondent, who was working as Chief Engineer (MES), retired from service on the afternoon of 31-3-1995. His date of birth is 9-3-1937. On his retirement, the respondent was paid a sum of rupees one lakh being the maximum amount of retirement gratuity payable under Rule 50(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. According to respondent he is entitled to payment of Rs. 1,51,210/- as retirement gratuity. He contended that though Rule 50 provided the maximum amount of retirement gratuity as Rs. 1,00,000/-, it was increased to Rs. 2,50,000/- by official memorandum dated 14-7-1995. He contended that the increased limit will apply to his case. He gave representations dated 24-11-2000 and 1-2-2001 contending that the retirement gratuity should not be restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- and he should be paid the full retirement gratuity calculated as per Rule 50(1). The said contention was rejected by the departme...
Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited Vs. R. Ven ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR886; 2004(2)KarLJ535
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as such.2. This is the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-1998 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--(1) On the basis of the application of the plaintiff, the defendant allotted industrial Plot No. 32 in Electronics City on 23-3-1982 and the plaintiff deposited Rs. 11,250/-. But, the plaintiff was informed that the said site had been allotted to Indian Telephone Industries and that he would be allotted alternative site. Accordingly, vide letter dated 14-9-1982 plaintiff was informed about the allotment of Plot No. 26-B at Rs. 45,000/- per acre with certain terms and conditions. Upon fulfilling them, the defendant executed lease-cum-sale deed on 29-1-1983. However, possession of the plot was not delivered to the plaintiff despite ...
Pennaiah and ors. Vs. Thippamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant444
K. Sreedharrao, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree in R. A. No. 10/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge. Senior Division. Bellary arising out of the Judgment and decree in 0. S. No. 595/1979 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Bellary.2. The appellants are the legal representatives: of the deceased defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property and for recovery of possession from the defendant.3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Ramaiah. One Thimmakka the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the property from Ramaiah under Ex. P. 2, later on sold the same in favour of plaintiff under Ex. P. 1 dated 28-5-1969. The plaintiff submits that after the purchase, she migrated to T. B. Dam. After some time when she came back, she found that substantial portion of suit schedule property was demolished and the defendant was in possession of the suit property. Hence, filed the suit.4. ...
Mrs. Doris K. Raj @ Doris D' Souza and Anr. Vs. A.T. Francis
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR853
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This case is very different from the general character of petitions that are filed for quashing of criminal proceedings before the lower Courts in so far as it deals with an issue of very crucial significance. The petitioners are husband and wife and as will be presently illustrated, they are persons of status who have come forward to undertake the cleansing of public life and improvement of the general quality of life. Inevitably, they have had to deal with powerful anti-social elements and underworld forces and the familiar tactic has been used against them by way of threats and intimidation in order to beat them down. The Courts have come across instances where human beings of substance and of courage fight on, these attacks and pressures notwithstanding, and the basic issue, and one of very very deep seated significance that has been arising in this case is whether the laws and the institutions that administer them are required to support, assist and redres...
Hanumanth Ballappa Ilager Vs. the Karnataka University, by Its Registr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR946
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The Petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 18.3.2003 passed by the 1st respondent in No. Ku/Exam/Comm/MPC/ 2003-228 vide Annexure-E, has presented this Writ Petition.2. The petitioner is a B.Com student studying in 2nd respondent's College; he has taken admission for the I year B.Com in the academic year 200-01 for which examination was held in the month of April 2001; his Registration Number was 4839; When he was writing the examination for the 1 year B.Com, squad of the 1st respondent-University had registered a case against him for involving in malpractice; the squad has submitted its report to the concerned authorities and thereafter, 2nd respondent has sent a communication to the petitioner stating that he was involved in the malpactice. When thing stood thus, after completion of the I year examination, petitioner took admission to the II year B.Com in the same college and he has appeared for the II year examination conducted by th...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. B.J.N. Hotel Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: II(2005)BC219; [2004]122CompCas928(Kar)
N. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that the respondent is due in a sum of Rs. 3,77,950 together with interest at 24 per cent. per annum on the ground that the respondent is unable to pay the debts.2. The respondent after service of notice entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections contending that the respondent-company is commercially solvent and there is no agreement between them to pay interest. Today, the respondent has come forward to pay the aforesaid amount claimed in the company petition. Accordingly, they have handed over a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 3,56,000 bearing No. 212499 dated November 25, 2003, drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. in favour of the petitioner and another demand draft for Rs. 22,000 bearing No. 725321 dated December 5, 2003, drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the petitioner towards full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner.3. However, the petit...
Ramachandra and anr. Vs. Shantaram and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ462; ILR2004KAR398
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a motor accident claim. M.F.A. No. 3576/99 is by the owner/Insured of the car bearing No. MYS 2993 against absolving his insurer of the liability to indemnify him and M.F.A. No. 3739/99 is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation for the injuries he had suffered in a motor accident that occurred on 25.4.1993.2. By the judgment impugned in these appeals, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,750/- along with interest thereon at 9% p.a. and has held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. MYS 2993 (in which the claimant was travelling) and the bus bearing No. KA - 15-621 and has apportioned the negligence between the two vehicles equally. Accordingly, both the owners of the vehicles are made jointly liable to pay the award amount in equal proportions. As the bus had been insured, the insurer of the bus was made liable to the extent of 50% of the award being the liability...
R. Srikanth Reddy Vs. the Registrar (Evaluation) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR684
ORDERPatil, J. 1. The petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 7th June 2001 on the file of the first respondent in case No. KU/EXAM/PROF.N. 1/ L & M/130 vide Annexure G, has presented the instant Writ Petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an MBBS student studying in the second respondent - College. After the petitioner appeared for the Examination, the first respondent University, has declared his result as 'passed' and issued the marks card on 24th August 2000 vide Annexure A. Thereafter, the provisional registration certificate was issued by the Karnataka Medical Council by its register dated 24th October 2000 and the second respondent College has also issued the Certificate for successful completion of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) on 26th May 2001. After completion of the MBBS course, the petitioner joined the house-man ship in the second respondent - College. When he was prosecuting his housemanshi...
Vasanth Rao Vs. Ramachandrasa @ Ramanathasa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1070
Manjula Chellur, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. It is not in dispute that a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C to be filled for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 474 of IPC against the respondents herein. The concerned Investigating Agency after investigation filed 'B' report. Challenging the same, a protest memo was filed by way of objection statement and the matter was listed for recording the evidence of the complaint and the witnesses if any on the objection statement. At that stage, when the matter was posted for evidence of the complaint on 7.6.2003 the complaint and his counsel were absent. The complaint was dismissed for default. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.3. Both the counsels submitted their arguments. The procedure that has to be followed is the procedure provided for warrant trial, definitely the stage of framing charges had not yet come. The ques...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »