Karnataka Court October 2007 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Anusuya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ380; 2008(2)KarLJ535; 2008(2)KLJ535; 2007(6)AIRKarR500; 2008AIHC(NOC)157(Kar); 2008ACJ380
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle is calling in question the judgment and award dated 6.6.2006 in M.V.C. No. 388 of 2003 on the file of the First Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short 'M.A.C.T.').2. One Manjunatha Reddy while driving the tractor bearing registration No. AP 07-V 780 to Ramasagara via Bangalore from Tumkur on NH-4 on 5.9.2003, lorry bearing registration No. CAS 2529, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the hind portion of the tractor, due to which Manjunatha Reddy fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The injured was admitted to a private nursing home and thereafter shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital where he succumbed to grievous injuries on 13.10.2003, despite treatment. The widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased Manjunatha Reddy moved a petition to recover Rs. 29,73,000 as compensation for the loss suffered by them. The M.A.C.T. held that the acciden...
Rathna Bai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR633; 2008(2)KarLJ400; ILR2008(1)Kar633; 2008(2)KLJ400; 2008(4)CivilLJ34; 2008AIHC973(Kar)
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The claimant-injured dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 38,000/- as compensation for personal injuries, by judgment and award dated 28th September, 2005, in MVC 4813/2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV Bangalore, for short MACT has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The fact that the appellant sustained injuries in an accident that occurred on 03.08.2003 involving a motor vehicle is indisputable. The appellant suffered fracture of the ulna and radius of the left upper limb and received conservative treatment by application of Plaster of Paris, in K.C. General hospital, is evident from Ex.P-5 the wound certificate. Dr. Prabhakar, Orthopedic Surgeon examined as PW-2 testified to the gross mal union of both the bones as disclosed in the X-ray Ex.P-8, wastage of muscle, weak grip and inability to lift weight, and that the appellant requires to undergo two surgeries to set right mal union. In the opinion of the Doctor, the ap...
E.C. Kuttiamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ492; 2007(4)KCCR2656
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are by persons who had been appointed as physical education teachers in private aided educational institutions between the years 1971 and 1974 and in the pay scale of Rs. 100-200.2. In the wake of reorganisation of states and similar physical education teachers who had been working in the merging areas getting integrated to the new State of Mysore and particularly in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, such teachers having enjoyed the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 130-210, it appears, the Government thought it fit to protect their pay and while the intention was good, they led to a series of chaotic and confusing orders being issued by the Government, generating unending litigation. The present writ petitions are also links in that chain.3. In view of a Government order, which had been issued in the year 1976 for the purpose of protecting the pay scales of physical education teachers in the merging areas, who had already been accusto...
U. Vali Basha S/O Late Ibrahim Sab Vs. Mohd. Bashu S/O Late Abdul Azee ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1011; ILR2008KAR402; 2008(1)KarLJ136; 2008(2)KLJ136; 2008(1)KCCR11; 2008(1)AIRKarR438; 2008CriLJ1011; 2008(2)AICLR621
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission by consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No. l who is party in person and also advocate for Respondent No. 2, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of.2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside or quash the order dated 12/3/2007 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) J.M.F.C, Hospet in P.C. No. 10/07 and the order dated 11/4/2007 passed by the Sri. Sessions Judge, Bellary in Crl.R.P. No. 71/2007 and to direct the trial Court to proceed against the respondent by accepting the a worn statement of the petitioner and his witnesses.3. The case of the petitioner is that on 11/8/2003 at about 5.30 p.m. in front of Girls Junior college, Hospet, the respondent herein wrongly restrained this petitioner, abused aim in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences and also threatened him that they would finish him, if he failed to withdraw his vakalath in C.C. No. 774/2...
Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant76; 2008(4)KarLJ175; 2008(2)KCCR667; 2008(2)AIRKarR503; AIR2008Kar76; 2008(4)CivilLJ324; 2008AIHC(NOC)694(Kar)(DB); ILR2008(1)Kar993
1. The 1st respondent borrowed loan from the appellant Respondents 2 and 3 are the guarantors. The respondents defaulted in repayment of the loan The appellant filed a petition under Section 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act (for short, the Act). The respondents filed objections that the District Court Bangalore has no territorial jurisdiction and that too proceedings have to be launched in whose local jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on business, wholly or substantially, in view of the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Act.2. In the instant case, the learned district judge has found that the contract ' between the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 to invest jurisdiction in the Court at Bangalore is void since it is contrary to the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and that appellant is not carrying on any business in Bangalore.3. The provisions of Section 46-B of the Act reads thus:Effect of Act on other laws:The provisions of this Act and of any ...
K. Devadas S/O Krishnappa Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2009(4)KCCRSN187:2009(3)AIRKarR452:AIR2009NOC1721
C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. This is a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act paying to set aside the judgment and award dated 06.12.2003 passed in MVC No. 66/1988 by the VII Additional Judge, Member, MACT-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-3) dismissing the claim petition.2. Parties will be referred with reference to the status in the claims Tribunal.3. The contention of the claimant in the Tribunal is as under:The claimants are the Legal Representatives of late Sathyanarayana. When the Sathyanarayana was crossing 80 feet road, 4th Cross 'D' Block, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, from West to East at about 7.45 p.m., on 09.03.1985, a Matador Van bearing No. CNZ-4041 belonging to Respondent No. 1 came with terrific speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the pedestrian D. Sathyanarayana, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries.4. The contention of the Second respondent -United India Insurance Company Limited is as under:Petit...
M.B. Bettaswamy Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ150; ILR2007(4)Kar5121
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21-4-2007 in O.S. No. 6743 of 1999. Suit is for permanent injunction.2. Case of the plaintiff is that, he is the GPA holder for the alleged owner of the property bearing house Nos. 17 and 18, Khatha No. 87/3 at Kothanur Village, Uttarhalli Hobli, measuring East-West 40 feet x North-South 60 feet and the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit schedule property and further alleged that, the respondent is trying to demolish and dispossess the plaintiff.3. Respondent-defendant filed written statement inter alia stating that, the land in question and other lands were notified for acquisition and Ex. D. 1-preliminary notification, Ex. D. 2-final notification were issued, as per Ex. D. 3-award was passed, as per Ex. D. 4-Mahazar for taking possession was drawn, as per Exs. D. 5 and D. 6-Mahazar was prepared by the engineering section and thereafter a layout was formed and the sites were allotted to th...
Rajendra S/O Doddappa Desai and Vittal S/O Venkappa Tulsigeri Vs. Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ49
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has come up for orders on the application filed by the newly added respondent seeking for vacating the interim order dated 9.1.2007 which reads as under.List this matter after ten days. Till then, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, on instructions, submitted that the authorities would not precipitate the matter regarding continuation of the petitioners in the post held by them.The said submission of learned AGA, as above, is placed on record.The Court Officer is directed to issue the carbon copy of this order to learned AGA, forthwith.2. Respondent No. 3 though was not a party to the original proceedings, has joined by seeking for impleadment by an application which came to be ordered on 30.7.2007. Though an application for vacating the interim order had been filed simultaneously, the matter was deferred by ten days for hearing on the said application after hearing learned Counsel for the parties. Though ...
The Regional Transport Officer and anr. Vs. S. Rajendra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ96; 2007(4)KCCRSN296(DB)
1. Respondent is the registered owner of motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-09/4949. The tax of the vehicle was paid by him upto 3-4-2000. The vehicle had met with an accident on 15-4-2000. Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the vehicle at the accident spot on 19-4-2000 and has submitted his report. The respondent has filed an application in Form 30 on 25-4-2000 declaring the non-user of the vehicle and seeking exemption from payment of motor vehicle tax. Considering the application, Regional Transport Officer by an order dated 27-4-2000 had provisionally accepted the request of the respondent, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the notification dated 11-9-1980. The respondent had declared that the vehicle was kept at M/s. Singh Motors, 57/58, Toobina Kere, KIADB Industrial Area, Yelachikkana Halli, near Mandya. Motor Vehicle Inspector has visited the said garage on 18-7-2000 and has found the vehicle at the said place. On a further inspection held on 26-12-2002,...
Gowri Containers Vs. S.C. Shetty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ498; ILR2007KAR4586; 2008(1)KarLJ55
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondent for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since both these appeals relate to the same parties and the same transactions, this common judgment is being passed in respect of both the appeals.2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as under:The complainant deals in fabrication and manufacture of containers and other accessories and equipments. The accused No. l is the proprietor of the accused No. 2, a proprietary concern. The accused No. 2 deals in agro chemicals. The accused No. 2 by its proprietor S.C. Shetty placed an order for containers with the complainant and in response to the same, the complainant supplied to the accused materials as per invoices totalling for an amount of Rs. 82,384/-. Towards the payment of the said containers, the accused issued eight cheques. One cheque for Rs. 10,000/- was encashed and seven cheq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »