Karnataka Court October 2010 Judgments
Sri Yoginarayana Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Vs. Registrar Ge ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2010
ORDER1. The 3rd respondent stood as surety to the principal borrower viz., Mr.Babu Rao, who along with his wife Mrs.Sujatha, borrowed a sum of 20,000/-. The borrower defaulted to repay the amounts due.Ultimately, the award came to be passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies for recovery of 28.314/-. The decreed amount is not paid. Thus, execution proceedings are initiated against the borrower and respondent No.3. In the execution proceedings, second respondent passed an order directing that the salary of the third respondent be attached for a sum of 80,000/- and to withhold an amount of 2,500/- per month from the salary of the third respondent in 32 installments towards realization of decretal amount. The principal borrower viz., Babu Rao and his wife Mrs.Sujatha are unheard off. Since the salary of the third respondent is not attached by the first respondent, as per the direction of the second respondent, this writ petition is filed praying for the direction to the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Bhaskar Pai, S/O Mr.Purushotham Pai Vs. Mr.Oswald Vegas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Delay of 36 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Misc.Crl.3394/2010 is allowed.2. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of acquittal passed by the JMFC, Mangalore, in C.C.No.375/2006 dated 30.4.2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The complainant has filed a case against the respondent-accused after causing legal notice, for the dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds, issued by the accused to the complainant towards the loan borrowed by him, when presented for encashment on 21.1.2003.5. According to the complainant, the respondent had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the loan borrowed by him and the trial Court, on such complaint being filed, holding that the complainant has failed to prove his source of income and also has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt, relying upon the decision in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325 and also having observed that t...
Tag this Judgment!The Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Chaithanya C.D. S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Respondent no 2 in MVC 40/05 on the file of MACT, 15th Small Causes Court, Bangalore is the appellant. 3. The essential facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are as under: -2. Parties will be referred according to their status found in the Tribunal for convenience.Claimant before the tribunal contended that on 28.12.2004 at about 8.30 PM was proceeding in his motor cycle on Maiagala Main road. Then the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-02-C 2944 lias driven rashly and negligently dashed against the petitioner. So, it led to an accident. For the pain, suffering and agony, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking an award of Rs.25.00 lakhs as compensation. This case of the claimant is resisted by respondent no.2 calling upon the oetitioner to prove the case contending that the averments asserted are not within the knowledge of the respondent. It is also contended that the claim is excessive. The liability if any is in accordance with the policy. If the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sri P R Srinivas S/O Late P N Raghavan Vs. Sri Somaskekar and the Orie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
JUDGMEMT1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case:On 20.05.2007, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EN-7324 on Kanakapura Road, another motorcycle bearing registration NO.KA-05-HV-5993 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT,Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs. 1,01,087/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is: whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or doe/i i...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Earth Movers Limited Vs. Mr. R Hareesh Kumar S/O. Sri L Ramali ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. These two appeals are interconnected and they are disposed of by this common order. writ petition to reinstate the petitioner into service in the ii l I mi (II l In llll- U.ll. IH Dl UCi 11 Si2. W.A.No.3477/2003 is filed by the first respondent in W.P.No. 13574/1999 aggrieved by the order dated 13-2-2003 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order removing the petitioner from service and the order of the appellate authority confirming the said order as per Annexure-H & M to the writ petition and directed the respondents in the removal till the date of order within six weeks from the date original post and grant 30% back salary from the date of date of receipt of the order and grant all consequential benefits which he is entitled to in law, failing which, he shall be paid full salary.3. W.A.No.3478/2003 is filed by the first respondent in the W.P.No. 13578/1999 being aggrieved by the order dated 14-2-2003 wherein the learned Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Joyce Severine Rego W/O. Felix Vincent Rego Vs. Mrs. Gretta Asha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.313/2995 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore, O.K., being unsuccessful in I.A.24 filed to reopen the case and to permit her to examine her husband as a witness, has filed this writ petition.2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition papers.3. Keeping in view the order passed by this Court in W.P.532/2007 dated 21.2.2009 and to avoid any future complication of not providing reasonable opportunity and parties raising a ground that there was denial of reasonable opportunity to place the evidence on record i.e., in the subsequent proceedings, if any, the prayer I.A.24 stands allowed subject to the condition that, the defendant's husband, who is proposed to be examined as DW.5, shall appear before the Trial Court on 15.12.2010 and depose in the matter. The petitioner shall serve a copy of affidavit evidence/examination-in-chief of the said witnesses on the learned counsel for the plaintiff before 1.12.2010. ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rathna Narayan W/O Narayan Vs. Smt. Vinoda W/O Late N Lokesh and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed O.S.94/08 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural Dist., for partition and separate possession, seeking l/4th share in the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner is the 5th defendant in the said suit. Plaintiffs filed I.A.32 seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint by way of deletion of item Nos.1 to 14 in plaint schedule and confining the prayer in the suit for partition in respect of the remaining items of properties in the plaint schedule. The application though opposed, was allowed and the plaintiffs were permitted to delete item Nos.1 to 14 in the plaint schedule. The said order has been questioned in this writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition papers.3. The order impugned herein was questioned by the6th defendant in the suit by filing WP 27882/10. The 6th defendant had made a counter claim. Permission was sought to file application seeking amendment of the counter claim i...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Bopaiah, S/O. Late Somanna Vs. A.P. Yogavathy and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.01.2008 allowing the application I. A. No. 8 directing to implead the petitioner as the 10th defendant in the suit bearing O.S. No.129/2001.2. The facts reveal that respondents 1 and 2 instituted O.S. No.129/2001 against the other respondents claiming the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the property bearing Sy. No.89/1 with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule and for mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 to 8 to conduct a survey and fix boundary to the schedule property and also injunction and possession of the encroached portion.During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application I.A. No.8 under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, requesting to impaled the petitioner as 10th defendant. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court heard the learned counsel for the parties end allowed the said application Aggrieved by the said Order, the present petition has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri G Munirayappa Vs. Agriculture Officer, Cum Seed Inspector,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner arrayed as accused No.2 in the capacity as Manager of Karnataka Seed Corporation Ltd., Shimoga, has preferred this above petition seeking for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.887/03 pending on the file of Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, by the time the petitioner received the summons from the Trial Court, the shelf life of the seeds was already expired and he could not challenge the report of the Seed Analyst and ask for retesting through Central Seed Laboratory as permissible under Sec. 1G(2) of the Seeds Act. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose and he prays for quashing of further proceedings.3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State does not dispute the said fact.4. The seeds in question is paddy. The Seed Analyst of Seed Testing Laboratory, Bangalore, functioning under Karnataka Seeds Certification Agency, a Government of K...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Modi Babu S/O Iqbal Mulla Vs. State by Ulsoor Gate Police Statio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No.293/10 registered for offences punishable under Section 465. 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 I P.C. and also under Sections 489(B), 489(C) I.P.C.2. On 8.9.2010, on receipt of credible information, the first informant and his staff proceeded to Banappa Park apprehended the accused. The accused was found in possession of Photostat copies of Fixed Deposit Receipt said to have been issued by Bank of Baroda, in the name of the petitioner and Internet banking letter. Letter of Confirmation said to have been given by the above bank. The petitioner was not in a position to give any explanation for possession of these documents.3. The learned Counsel would submit that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not capital offences and the maximum imprisonment provided for such offences is for a period of 7 years. The investigation of case is in progress. The petitioner was found to be in possession of Photostat copies of fake Fixed Deposi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »