Karnataka Court February 2008 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.
Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Now Rep. by Its Regional Manager, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ310; [2008(118)FLR580]; ILR2008KAR2563; 2008(2)KCCR1264; 2008(4)AIRKarR65; 2008LabIC(NOC)929(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellant/insurer has come up with this appeal challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,91,960/- together with interest at 12% p.a.2. The case of the respondents 1 to 5 is that the deceased Sheik Nazim was a driver working under Respondent No. 6, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP-12/T/2955. On 12/8/2001 as usual, the deceased Sheik Nazim who was the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle. During the course of employment, he developed chest pain and severe sweating, therefore he rushed to the Apolo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was examined at about 3.30 p.m. and he was declared dead at 5.00 p.m. Therefore, respondents 1 to 5 being the wife and children filed the claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bidar. The appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle filed the objection statement and contested the claim petition. After considering the evidence, the C...
Subodh Subhash Kakade Vs. Appasabad Jinnappa Chougule and
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ406; ILR2008KAR2399; 2008(6)KarLJ318; ILR2008(2)Kar2399; 2008(6)KLJ318; 2008(3)KCCR1319; 2008(3)AIRKarR248; AIR2008NOC1922; 2008AIHC2444(Kar)
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The claimant - injured, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 532/2004 by common judgment and award dated 22.10.2005 in MVC No. 532 and 533/2004 of the III Addl. District Judge and Member, IV MACT, Belgium (for short 'MACT'), has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The appellant, along with his parents was travelling in a maruti car bearing registration No. KA-22/MA-1919 from Davanagere to Belgaum on 19.2.2004 when the motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA-22/6158 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent, came from the opposite direction, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and clashed against the maruti car causing grievous injuries to the occupants, including the appellant, and the death of Smt. Sushma - mother of the appellant. While the appellant instituted a claim petition numbered as MVC No. 532/2004, joined his father in filing MVC No 533/2004 for compensation due to...
Sri. Onkarappa Chandappa Biradar Vs. Sri Dhareppa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2891; 2009(2)KarLJ748; 2008(4)AIRKarR532; AIR2008NOC2497
ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petition is filed challenging the Order at Annexure-'A', rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 148 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 335/1989 and sought for specific performance of the contract of sale against the respondent. The suit came to be decreed by the Judgment and Decree dated 05.04.1993. Aggrieved by the Decree of the specific performance, the respondent brought an appeal in R.A. No. 42/1993 which came to be dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.1995. The perusal of the Decree reveals that the petitioner was granted the Decree for specific performance subject to deposit of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 9,100-00, within one month from the date of the Decree. The time granted by the Trial Court was also confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 42/1993. The petitioner did not deposit the amount of Rs. ...
Krishnegowda Vs. the Chief Engineer (Elec.), Mangalore Electricity Sup ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ425(Kar); 2008(4)KarLJ350; 2008(2)KCCR1067; 2008(3)AIRKarR350; AIR2008NOC2037
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has questioned the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 1st January, 2004 vide Annexure-G issued by first respondent and to declare the agreement vide Annexure-H entered into between the parties. Further, petitioner has sought to declare the agreement and obtaining the signatures of the petitioner as illegal and void and consequently, declare that, the compensation awarded by respondents is unjust, improper and unreasonable and further to issue appropriate direction to pay compensation to the petitioner.2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is a farmer and has got house and land bearing Survey No. 74 situate at Ragimuddanahalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District. It is the further case of petitioner that, in addition to existing eight coconut trees, petitioner had planted 100 coconut saplings during the year 1996-97. Petitioner also used to grow sugarcane crop and oth...
Tahsildar and ors. Vs. Gurappa Shiddappa Rolli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ361; ILR2008(2)Kar2236; 2008(4)KCCRSN318
1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 6-2-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the Assistant Commissioner-second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of land within three months and to report compliance to this Court. The learned Single Judge imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the Assistant Commissioner personally.2. The grievance of the appellants is that the application of the petitioner was considered and rejected but the true fact was not placed before the learned Single Judge as the concerned file was not made available to the Government Pleader who represented on behalf of the appellants. I.A. No. I of 2008 is filed producing certain documents. One of the documents so produced is an endorsement dated 18-7-2005 said to have been served on the respondent informing rejection of his application for grant of land.3. It is pertinent to no...
The Registrar, University of Agricultural Science Vs. Fakiragowda S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)KCCR1272; 2008(3)AIRKarR361
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In all those 15 Civil Revision Petitions the petitioner being aggrieved by the common order dated 0-6-2004 passed in Execution case Nos. 9/04, 10/04, 11/04, 18/04, 34/03, 41/03, 42/03, 43/03, 50/03 & 51/03, 78/04, 79/04, 80/04, 81/04 & 92/04 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharwad, has presented the instant Civil Revision Petitions.2. The respondents herein filed Execution Petitions on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dharvad, as referred to above. The said matter had coma up for consideration before the Execution Court on 8-6-2004.3. The Execution Court after hearing both the sides and after considering the material available on record has passed a common order in respect of 15 Execution Petitions as referred to above, by holding that deduction of income tax on interest payable under Section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is not permissible and the objections raised by the JDR-petitioner herein was rejected.4. As...
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Hubli Divisi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant70; 2008(126)ECC112; 2008(152)LC112(Karnataka); 2008(226)ELT325(Kar); ILR2008KAR2598; 2008(5)KarLJ81; 2008[12]STR671; [2009]19STT467
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner is the Central Excise and Customs Department, Hubli represented by its Assistant Commissioner of Central Excess, seeking to question the action of the second respondent in bringing to sale, the properties belonging to the first respondent in recovery of amounts due from the first respondent. The petitioner claims priority in such recovery.2. The brief facts as are necessary for consideration of the present writ petition are, that the first respondent is an assessee within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. It transpires that the first respondent is due to the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 7,83,23,235/- by way of central excise duty and penalty alongwith interest in terms of on Adjudication Order No. 2/2006, dated 1.3.2006. Pursuant to proceedings initiated for clandestine removal of the manufactured goods, it transpires that there was a Detention Order issued by the Authorised Officer as on 9.11.2006 for recovery of the said arrears and a Notice ...
Mr. N.R. Narayana Murthy Vs. Mr. H.N. Nanjegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2206; ILR2008KAR1574; 2008(4)KarLJ73; 2008(2)KCCR894
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petition coming on for preliminary hearing was heard at length.2. It is contended that it is the misfortune of the petitioner that process is issued against him for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).3. The facts as are relevant for a consideration of this petition are as follows:The petitioner is the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of a leading Software Services Company based in Bangalore, known as Infosys. It is said that Infosys has set up a 'Corporate Education Center' at Mysore. Upon learning that Dr. A P J Kalam, the then President of India was scheduled to visit Mysore on April 8, 2007, the petitioner, had invited the President of India to visit the Infosys campus at Mysore, by a letter dated April 6, 2007, which was accepted. For purposes of maintaining protocols, the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore had provided d...
Dr. N. Kasinath Vs. Sri Arun R. Rawell and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR857; 2008(5)KLJ260; 2008(2)KCCR907; 2008(3)AIRKarR66; AIR2008NOC1620; 2008(3)ICC408; 2008AIHC2294(Kar)
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1198/1991 dated 28.7.2004 passed by the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents were the defendants. Since the third respondent died during the pendency of this appeal, his legal. representatives have been brought on record.2. The plaintiff has contended that first defendant is the owner of site bearing No. 26/4 (old site Nos.31 and 32 laid out in Sy. No. 5/1 of Gangehalli village), K.H. Muniswamappa Block, Gangenahalli, Bangalore, which is more-fully described in the schedule to the plaint thereinafter referred to as 'schedule site') having purchased the same from J.P. Shastry, under a sale deed dated 23.4.1974. The second defendant is the uncle and power of attorney holder of the first defendant. In July/August, 1985, the second defendant represented on behalf of the first defendant that the first defendant is the sole and absolut...
Smt. M. Menaka and anr. Vs. Siddalingaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1697; 2008(4)KLJ151; 2008(2)KCCR1120:2008(3)AIRKarR320:AIR2008NOC2099; 2008(4)Crimes335; 2008(4)CivilLJ401
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 4th February 2006 in C. Misc. No. 322/2000 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, have presented the instant Revision Petition (Family Court) seeking further enhancement of allowances awarded by way of maintenance by the Family Court on the ground that, the maintenance awarded is inadequate.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, the marriage of first petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 8th July 1991 and out of the said wedlock, second petitioner was born on 22nd May 1992 and both the first petitioner and respondent lived together happily. After the birth of the daughter - second petitioner herein, the respondent did not visit to see the first petitioner. In spite of the first petitioner and her parents making several efforts to convince the respondent to take back the petitioners, nothing materialized and respondent refused to heed to their requ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »