Karnataka Court October 2010 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.
Guruswamy S/O Manjugowda Vs. the United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.7.2005 passed in M.V.C.No.6450/2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.4.81.000/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against claim of Rs. 12,00.000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the road traffic accident. The appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and he is entitled for enhancement of compensation.2 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was aged about 28 years working as a Grinder at Gururaghavendra industries, Electronic City, Bangalore, getting monthly salary of Rs.4.500/-. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He contended that at about 9.00 a.m. on 14.1 1.2003, near Hunasemara bus stop on Kanakapur...
Sri. T.Cheluvaraju Vs. the Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. This Review Petition is filed for review of the order dated 4th August 2010 passed in C.C.C.No.893/2009.2. Though this matter is posted for non compliance of office objections, we have heard Sri. S.R. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, for quite some.3. During the course of submission, he submitted that, the review petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to redress his grievance before the appropriate legal forum and to keep open all the contentions urged in the review petition.4. Placing the said submission of the learned counsel for petitioner on record, the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to petitioner to redress his grievance before the appropriate legal forum, if he is so advised or need arises. All the grounds urged in the review petition are left open....
Hanumanth S/O Malluppa Jewargi Vs. Manananda W/O Late Mallikarjun Jewa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the lather-in-law of 1s respondent, challenging the order passed by the Family Court directing the respondents are entitled to maintenance of Rs.2.000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/ per month to his daughter-in-law and grand daughter.2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking in the suit. The 1sl plaintiff is widow of one Mallikarjun, who is the son of defendant. Their marriage took place on 31.5.2004. The defendant is her father in law. The husband of the is plaintiff died on 14.08.2005. It is the case of the plaintiff that, after the death of her husband his family members snatched a cheque of Rs.50.000/- which was in her husband's name and received compensation for accidental injuries. The 2nd plaintiff was born three months after the death of her husband at Sholapur in the house of 1st plaintiffs sister. Eight months after the birth of child, plaintiffs' went to the house of defendant, the plaintiffs were allowed to stay in the def...
Somalingappa, Major Vs. Jabbarsab S/O.Patel Imam Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order dated 16.1.2006 passed by the I Fast Track Court, Shimoga in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2005.2. The complainant is said to be a friend of the accused and the accused who is doing contract work of the PWD and Zilla Panchayath, approached the complainant for financial assistance. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/-as hand loan and towards repayment of the loan, the accused issued a post dated cheque on 16.4.2002. On presentation of the same, it was dishonored for insufficient funds. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the accused. Since the accused did not make payment, complaint came to be filed. The Trial Court after enquiry, has held that accused was guilty of the offence and awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/-, out of which, Rs.65.000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation for the loss suffered by him. Against which, the Appellate Court reversed the finding on the ground that it is a fashion to collect bla...
Ajmera Housing Corporation Vs. M Par Constructions Private Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed a memo, dated 29/10/2010, stating that as per the direction of this Court, the respondent has dismantled and removed the tower crane as on 25/ 10/2010 arid has fully vacated the site-on 25/10/2010.2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits, in view of the subsequent developments, IA-Ii will not survive; for consideration and die respondent does not press IA II before the Trial Court.3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that appropriate memo will be filed before the Trial Court regarding prayer A to D in AA No.626/2010.4. The submission is placed on record.5. The appeal is disposed of. The orders passed in this appeal from time to time will not prejudice the rights of the cither parties.Misc.Cvl.Nos.8102/2010, 9238/2010, 9239/2010 and Misc.Cvl.9240/2010, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are rejected....
S V S Consultants Props V Srinivasa Rao Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. This application is filed to recall the order dated 13-8-2010. Dismissing the review petition in RP No i 41 of 2010, reading as under:In terms of the order dated 06.08.2010 learned counsel for petitioners has not filed the copies of award made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However. Sri K N Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would like to draw our attention to Annexure-A to R produced along with memo dated 11-8-2010, said to be copies of decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, What were required to he produced were copies of the award passed by the tribunal and not what is produced along with the memo dated 11 -8-2010.2. In the circumstance, we are not able to appreciate either the submissions or the grounds urged in the review petition. Therefore review petition is dismissed.2. It is thereafter the present application is filed under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order of dismissal passed on 13-8-2010. explaining the circumstances as follows:1...
M.B.Sreepadaraja, Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant challenging the order of aoqmvtal dated 19.11.04 passed the Fast Track (Sessions ) Judge-X, Bangalore in Crl A.No. 422/04, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short N.I Act, by reversing the order of conviction passed by the AddL C.M.M., Bangalore in CC.36711/02 by judgment dated 6.5.01 convicting the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing her to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/ and in default of payment of fine, directing her to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with a direction that a sum of Rs.55,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. Parties are referred according to their rank in the Trial Court.2. The complainant - appellant filed a complaint before the XXII Addl.CMM, Bangalore under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the accused has issued two cheques for Rs.25,000/- each dated 15.5.02 and 3.6.02 and the said cheques when presented were d...
NagendrappA. and ors Vs. Kariyappa, and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Plaintiffs in OS 32/2000 are the appellants in this second appeal.2. Plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property in their favour and for permanent injunction against the defendants and for such other reliefs.3. Case of the plaintiffs is that Kavalu Hanumanthappa had two sons viz., Kare Hanumanthapa and Ugrappa. Kare Hanumanthappa had got three sons viz., Kavalu Kariappa. Ugrappa and Sanna Hanumanthappa. Kavalu Kariappa had got two sons viz., Hanumanthappa and Narasimhappa. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the sons of Hanumanthappa. Plaintiff no.6 is the son of Narasimhappa. Kavalu Hanumanthappa's sons were Kavalu Kariappa and Ugrappa orally partitioned the joint family properties. Kavalu Kariappa separated from joint family. Kavalu Hanumantappa and his second son Ugrappa enjoyed the properties. Second son of Kare Hanumanthappa i.e., Ugrappa died living behind his wife Sanamma and three daughters by name Kariamma, Eramma and Narasappa. Defendant...
Sri S Kupudas S/O N Channappa Vs. Smt K C Sharadamma W/O Late K Chayap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The tenant is in revision against the order dated 25.5.2010 on I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in HRC No.447/2008 on the file of Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore City. notice to landlady-respondent No. 1 who is duly represented and landlord-respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Petition is posted for Admission after sendee of Heard.2. Respondents had initiated proceedings against the petitioner seeking his eviction under the provisions of Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for their own use and occupation. The petitioner tenant entered appearance and resisted the proceedings contending that schedule property does not measure 15 feet x 3 feet as averred in the petition, but the measurement is much more. On that basis, it was urged that proviso of Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable. To gain support to such contention, the tenant filed I.A.No.III under Order XXVI, Rule 9 CPC seeking issuance of commission by the ...
Dr.Shama Rao D, S/O Late Doraiswammy S, Vs. Dr (Mrs) Anupama
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Respondent is M.C. 131.0/02 is challenging the decree of divorce dt. 19.12.05 granted in M.C.No. 1310/2002 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, dissolving the marriage between himself and his wife petitioner in the said proceedings. The Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2005 is a common judgment in M.C.No. 1310/2002 filed by the wife seeking decree of divorce under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and O.S.No.75/2003 also filed by the wife seeking decree of injunction against her husband restraining him from making false and defamatory statements against her in respect of their marital relationship. The Respondent husband in the proceeding is challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.No. 1310/2002 only. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to by their status in M.C. Petition in the Family Court.2. The facts leading to this appeal are, petitioner is wife respondent is her husband. They are Hindus, their marriag...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »