Karnataka Court September 2007 Judgments

Yashodhara B. Shetty S/O Balakrishna Bhandary Vs. United India Insuran ...

Court: Karnataka

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision-making, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals, though listed for admission, axe clubbed together finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. M.F.A. No. 5490/2005 and M.F.A. 5489/2005 are preferred by the insured-owner of the offending motor vehicle, calling in question the common judgment and award dated 22-03-2005 in M.V.C. Nos. 2213/2000 and M.V.C. No. 1508/1998 on the file of the Prl. District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangakxre, (for short 'MACT').3. M.F.A. 314/2006 is instituted by the claimant-injured dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 47,000/- and interest at 6% per annum as compensation for personal injuries, by judgment and award dated 22-03-2005 in M.V.C. No. 2213/2000 on the file of the MACT.4. The motor vehicle being a bus bearing Certificate of Registration No. KA-19/3619 owned by the appellant in M....

W.E. Sathyanarayana Vs. W.S. Vijayakumar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR4851; 2008(3)KarLJ681

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 10.7.2003 in OS No. 4469/1997.2. The suit is one for damages of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest. The case of the plaintiff is that, apparition suit in OS No. 8386/1980 was pending on the file of the Addl. City Civil Civil Judge (CCH-31) Bangalore City. The defendant, who is working in M/s. Prakash Leasing, Bangalore is highly influential persons by virtue of his professional dealings, filed a false complaint on 30.1.1992 before the Shivaji Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 Indian Penal Code, without any reasonable or probable cause, police registered the complaint. However, the said prosecution resulted in discharge of the plaintiff by an order dated 28.6.1996 by the Criminal Court. The prosecution case went from 1992 to 1996. The plaintiff who is an Advocate suffered physical, mental and financial stress and his reputation is lowered in the Society. He is a member ...

Narayanaswamy, since dead by LR's Vs. the Divisional Controller, K.S.R ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008ACJ964; ILR2007KAR4709; 2008(2)KarLJ752

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of both the parties and the appeal is heard on merits.2. This appeal is filed by the LRs of one Narayanaswamy who was a claimant before the MACT, Chintamani in MVC No. 12/2001.3. The claim petition was lodged by Narayanaswamy claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 03.10.2000. The claimant was examined on 14.08.2003. The doctor was also examined in chief on 02.08.2004. During the pendancy of the case, the claimant Narayanaswamy died on 19.10.2004. The Counsel for the claimant on 18.08.2005 filed a memo reporting the death of the claimant and an application was also filed by the present appellants herein under Order 22 Rule 3 to come on record as LRs of the deceased and to contest the case. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal dated 18.08.2005 on the ground that the LRs cannot continue the claim petiti...

Sugalabai Vs. Gundappa A. Maradi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR4790; 2008(2)KarLJ406

V. Jagannathan, J.1. These two appeals are clubbed together and a common judgment is rendered in view of common question of law of considerable importance being raised concerning the question relating to a married daughter also being entitled to be treated as a coparcener irrespective of the marriage taking place prior to the Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990 coming into force or afterwards, in view of the amendment affected to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for short 'the Principal Act') by the State of Karnataka by The Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 (Karnataka Act No. 23/1994), with effect from 30th July 1994 and the subsequent amendment brought to the Principal Act by the Central Government by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (C.A. 39/2005) with effect from 9.9.2005.2. Briefly stating the facts, RSA No. 904/2001 is preferred by the plaintiff in the trial Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in modifying the share of ...

Poshakadantha @ Poshi S/O. Narasimhaiah and Vs. the State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR4463; 2008(3)KarLJ258; 2007(6)AIRKarR320(DB)

R.B. Naik, J.1. This is an appeal filed by accused Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 15.05.2004 passed in SC. No. 68/2002 by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II Shimoga, convicting the appellants/accused for the offences punishable Under Section 302 & 201 r/w. Section-34 of the I.P.C., and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months for the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and further sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of three months for the offence punishable Under Section 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. It is ordered that substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:On 05.03.2002, the complainan...

Mr. Winston Tan S/O Winston Tan and Mr. Gibran Tan S/O Winston Tan Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR411; 2008(3)KarLJ58

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The short question which is required to be decided in these proceedings is whether the petitioners who are purchasers are entitled for a notice before any order of confiscation/forfeiture is passed under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short the Act). The matter arises in the following manner:The petitioners claim that they have purchased Flat No. 004 of Kamala Mansion, Ground Floor, Promenade Place, No. 45/2, Promenade Road pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 20th March 1997 for valuable consideration from respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioners, the said deed is registered with the sub-registrar at Shivajinagar, Bangalore. It is not in dispute that certain proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 3 - Vendor under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'). In the said proceedings, he was directed to be detained and has suffer...

National Board of Examinations (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR1178; 2008(2)KarLJ718; ILR2008(1)Kar1178; 2008(1)AIRKarR462; 2008(2)KLJ718; 2008(1)KCCR429(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20.07.2006 in Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2005 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition.2. After obtaining his M.B.B.S. degree, the petitioner underwent the training in Radiotherapy from the Karnataka Cancer Therapy and Research Centre, Hubli and qualified himself to appear in the final examination held by the National Board of Examinations under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The final examination consists of examinations in theory and practical. The petitioner appeared and passed in the theory examination held in December 2002. Though he paid the examination fee for the practical examination held in March 2003, the petitioner could not actually appear in the examination due to certain unavoidable reasons. He appealed in the next practical examination held i...

S.B. Khanagoudar S/O. Khanagoudar B. Vs. the Director,

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by a person who claims that he had been appointed as a 'Second Division Assistant' in the year 1978 on temporary basis to serve in the notified area, Gokak falls by the Deputy Commissioner of Belgaum District.2. It appears the Deputy Commissioner terminated the services of the temporary employee in the year 1979 and that action though belatedly had been questioned by filing a writ petition in WP No. 7116 of 1983, in the interregnum, there appears to have been certain other developments wherein the Divisional Commissioner also appears to have issued some directions, but which had not been given effect to in one of the two manners suggested by the Divisional Commissioner and this Court in the light of the Deputy Commissioner not having fully obeyed with the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, ordered that the Deputy Commissioner should consider giving the posting to the petitioner in any other place if the local au...

Sri K.M. Venkatesh S/O Late Munivenkatappa Vs. the Secretary Urban Dev ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ23; 2008(3)KCCRSN181; 2008(3)AIRKarR122; AIR2008NOC1535(DB)

1. All the four writ appeals involve similar questions of fact and law, hence are heard together for common disposal.In W.A. Nos. 1718/2007 & 1720/2007Sri S.M. Babu has filed an application on behalf of one Sri M. Anwarji2. These appeals pertain to the Municipal elections of Chikkaballapur City Municipality. The Election Commissioner is R-4 in both the appeals who issued notification dated 4.08.2007 for conducting elections to the local bodies including Chikkaballapur Municipality. The Government by notification dated 30.07.2007 issued notification regarding the roster pattern to be followed in the election to the various Municipalities as per Annexure-C. The calendar of events dated 04.08.2007 was stayed by this court on 7.8.2007. The Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 14334/2007, in view of the undertaking of R-4 that elections would be held before 30.09.2007 stayed the stay order granted by this court in W.P. No. 12391/2007. The calendar of events dated 4.8.2007 virtually had became unwork...

Mahesh Centre and anr. Vs. People Charity Fund by Its Trustees

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ4344

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This Regular First Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 27-3-2002 in O.S. No. 5309/1990 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance for lease of schedule property.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. Respondents are the defendants. The parties in this appeal are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.3. First defendant is a public charitable trust. Defendants 2 to 4 are the Trustees. Defendants are the owners of schedule property. Plaintiffs are engaged in developing modern building/complexes. The defendants invited tenders in the month of May/June 1980 for development of schedule property. Plaintiffs through their letter dated 17-6-1980 offered to develop the schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, after long correspondence, there came to be a concluded contract for development of schedule property. Since the defendants failed to perform their part of obligatio...