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.
V.S.Bsavaraju Vs. Naseerabhanu, W/O.S.E.Abdul Basha and anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The teamed counsel for the appellant and the representative of the second Respondent and the learned counsel for the seqottd Respondent are present.2. By mutual discussion, they have, arrived at a settlement. The second Respondent - Insurance Company has agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.80.000/ - (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal and the Appellant has agreed to receive the said amount in full and final settlement of his claim.3. The second Respondent - Insurance Company has agreed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of preparation of the Award, failing which it shall carry interest at Wo p.a. from the date of default, till the date of deposit.4. The parties have filed a Johit Memo. The settlement is in the best interest of both the parties. Therefore, accepted.5. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the MACF, Tumkur. in MVC No.301/2004 stands modified in terms of the Johit Memo filed b...
H.Shivashankaraiah S/O.Late Huchveeraiah Vs. M/S. Bindu Promoters and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
0RDER1. Petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Corporation No.35 (Old No.251/361) in Sy. No.27/1 situated at Kadirenaholli Village, Subramanyapuram Main Road, Padmanabhanagar, and Bangalore. The respondent is the developer. Both the parties entered into a registered joint development agreement for construction of the apartments in the aforementioned property in the name and style of 'Bindu Arpan Apartment'. Copy of the joint development agreement is produced at Annexure - 'A' to the writ petition. Clause 12 of the said agreement reveals that the petitioner is entitled to 31.1% of super built-up area in the residential complex to be constructed by the developer. Subsequently, a supplementary agreement was entered into between the parties on 27.09.2004. In the said supplementary agreement also, it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner-land owner is entitled to 31.1% of super built-up area.2. According to the petitioner, the respondent started illegally locking the f...
M/S.Girinagara Arya Vvsya Sangha |r]. Vs. Smt.DeepA.A. W/O.Sundhar. an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Misc.Cvl. 17025/2010 is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC by the appellant seeking permission to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 22 07.2010 made in O.S.No.7763/2008 on the file of XXXIX Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore city.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the registered Sangha and it is represented by its president Sri.M.V.Reddappa Setty and he has sworn to an affidavit seeking permission to prefer the appeal. It is stated in the affidavit that the appellant is the absolute owner in physical possession of the property bearing No. 734 situated in the layout formed by the Vishwabharathi Housing Building Co-operative Society Limited at Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Layout. Hosakerehalli village. Uttarahalli Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 80' and North to South 60. having purchased the same under registered Sale deed dated 17.06.1993 in the name of erstwhile President of the Sangha. viz. Sri....
State of Karnataka Vs. Kumara, S/O. Neelegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court -I Mandya in S.C.No. 121/1937 acquitting the accused of the offences u/s 498 A.3C4-B of CPC and Sec. 3.4 and 6 of the D.P. Act.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 being the husband and Accused Nos.2 and 3 being the parents of the accused No. 1 during the marriage of the accused with the deceased Mamatha on 22.05.1996 demanded and accepted dowry from the parents of the deceased and after the marriage, the accused were physically assaulting the deceased and ill treating her with a view to coerce her to bring the remaining amount of Rs.5000/-which was the balance amount of dowry payable from the parents thereby alleged to have committed offence U/s.49S-A IPC.3. It is further alleged that on 8.6.1997 at about 9 a.m. in Hulikere village of KRS of Mandya District, the accused are alleged to have caused the death of Mamatha for dowry by the deceased pouring kero...
Maletira J.Muthappa Son of Joyappa Vs. the Managing Director Hassan Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Appellant is the plaintiff before the court below, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2003 made in O.S.No.56/1995 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Virajpet, filed this regular first appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.56/1995seeking for recoveryof ?.63,660/along with costs and future interest from respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The plaint averment is that the plaintiff and 2nd defendant jointly became the agents of the ist defendant i.e., the Managing Director. Hassan Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan, in order to collect the coffee from the various growers on. behalf of the 1st defendant as per the directions of the 3rd respondent-Coffee Board. The plaintiff contend that other growers, himself as well as the 2nd defendant had supplied the pooled Coffee to defendant No.l through their agency situated at A.P.M.C.. Virajpet Depot and the Depot was under the control of defendant No...
M/ S.Transport Corporation of India Ltd Vs. the Bangalore Dress Manufa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This is defendant's appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010 made in O.S.No.1916/07 on the file of the Ad.dl.City Civil and Sessions Judge> Bangalore (CCH-5).2. As per the impugned judgment, the defendant was directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment, failing which, liberty was given to the plaintiff for recovery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises from the defendant though the process of Court. Further, the trial court has held that there shall be an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C. to determine and mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of the vacant post session of the suit schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff.3. The appellant and his Counsel and the respondent and his Counsel are present before the Court. They filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. Parties to...
Bhaskar Vembu S/O. N. Vembu Vs. State of Karnataka,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner in the above petition has sought for setting aside the order dated 10.05.2007 passed by the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore in C.C.No.451/2007 and sought for quashing of further proceedings in C.C.No.451/2007.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and supplying of Bourn vita. On 27.07.2004 the respondent Food Inspector ceased a bottle of Bourn vita from the business premises of the petitioner and sent the same to Public Analyst to ascertain whether it is adultered or not as required under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteraton Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), pursuant to which the Public Analyst has filed his report on 10.08.2004 stating the Bourn vita ceased by the respondent from the premises of the petitioner is adultered.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as seen from the packing cover, the validity period of the ceased Bour...
Sri.S.C.Venkatesh Murthy S/O Chandrashek and ors Vs. Bruhat Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. This petition is filed for review of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14798/08 dated 13.7.2009, wherein this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, held that the complaint has already been Sled on the identical subject matter and the same is in 18.2. This Court held that 'die petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the public interest litigation filed, challenging the procedure followed by Braher Bangalore Mahanagara PaMke in awarding tenders in public projects as the same seriously infringes the rights and interests of the citizens, of Bangalore- It was observed by this Court that since the petitioners have already approached the Lokayukcha and fifed a complaint which is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayuktha and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent - Lokayuktha as is not entitled to any (b) & (c) sought for in the writ petition and the question of issuing await of mandamus to consider the.3...
Byra Hanume Gowda S/O Muni Byre Gowda Vs. State by Saraswathipuram Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The petitioner arrayed as an accused in Crime No.l 14/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections under sections 465. 438 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. by Saraswathipuram police, Mysore, has sought for anticipatory bail.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have gone through the cements of first information.3. The petitioner is a close relative of first informant. The petitioner had introduced one Anil Kumar to first informant and also represented to him that said Anil Kumar was in possession of Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 1,95,00.000/- which was yet to be encased. He had told first informant to pay a sum of 2 Lakh to said Anil Kumar with an assurance after encashment of Demand Draft, money would be returned to first informant. On representation made by petitioner, first informant promptly sent 2 Lakh to the account of the said Anil Kumar by Email transfer. Thereafter, said Anil Kumar did not repay the amount. When first inform...
The Divisional Controller Karnataka Vs. Sri Syed Maqsood S/O.Syed Moha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This appeal is by the KSRTC for reduction 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 27.02.2000, when the claimant was travelling in a tempo bearing registration No. CTO-9432 on Srirangapatna- KR Pet Road, near Dasaraguppe Village, a KSRTC bearing registration No.KA-17-F-317 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tempo. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Mysore seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs .2,68,740/-- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no disp Lite 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 to just and reasona...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »