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.
L.Narasimhaiah S/O Lakshminarasimhaiah Vs. the Chief Traffic Manager B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
Heard on the applications Misc.W.Nos. 7205/10 and 7206/10.2.Misc. W. No.7206/2010 is filed for recalling the order dated 31.05.2010 passed in W.A. No.4437/2009, wherein, the appeal was dismissed for default and for want of prosecution. Since there is a delay of 35 days in filing the said application. Misc.W.Nc.7205/2010 is filed for condoning the said delay.3.We have heard the .'earned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the averments made in the applications supported by the affidavits.4. Having regard to the averments made in the applications supported by the affidavits, which are not controverted, we hold that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 35 days in filing the application -Misc.W.No.7206/2010 to recall the order dated 31.05.2010.5. Accordingly. Misc. W. Nos.7206/2010 and 7205/2010 are allowed. The delay in filing the application for recalling the order dated 31.05.2010 is condoned on payment of cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees two Hundred only) to be dep...
Smt. LaxmammA. W/O. Venkatappa, Vs. Sri. Mohan, S/O. Muniyappa,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Admit.2. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 12/03/2007 passed in MVC No. 5646/2005 by the IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-VII. Bangalore (SCCH-7). (Hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal" for short).3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of 2.99,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of 20.00.000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Venkatappa, in the road traffic accident.4. In brief, the facts of the case are- The appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Sri. Venkatappa and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act. Claiming compensation of 20.00.000/-. on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 1.5.2005 at abo...
M/S. Vrijesh Natural Fibre and Fabrics (P) Ltd Vs. M/S. Gati Desk-to-d ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The defendant No.1 in O S No.3269/1999 on the file of City Civil Judge. Bangalore City, is before this Court, challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2007 made in the above-said suit, in so far as holding that the defendant No.1 is liable to pay Rs. 1.50.015/- with interest, etc.2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, die appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as the defendant No.1" and 'the plaintiff and 'the defendant No.2', respectively.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:Respondent No.1 the plaintiff filed a suit in O S No.3269/1999 against the present appellant and respondent ND.2 pleading that defendant No.1 entrusted a consignment to the plaintiff at Bangalore under docket No.AE 90462 dated 28.5.1996 for being transported and delivered to the 2nd respondent at Ahmadabad on C O D (Cash on Delivery) basis and the plaintiff was entitled to collect Rs.94.930/- ( which include...
V Kodandarama, S/O. K.T. Venkata Reddy Vs. V Rajashekar S/O. K T Venka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.4. Brief facts of the case arc:That on 23.07.2006 when the claimant was going on Herohonda motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-17Jri-7578 as a pillion rider from Medahally to Burujinaroppa near convent it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider it dashed against a pig as a result the claimant sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT, Chitradurga seeking compensation of 5.00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.00,000/- with interest at. 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, negligence and liability of the Insurer of the offending vehicle the only point that re...
Mahananda W/O Shankarappa Vs. Commissioner of City Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This appeal is preferred by the 2" respondent in W.P.No.82630/2009 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge who set aside the order passed by the City Corporation of Gulbarga. Regularizing the unauthorized construction.2. The writ petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.507/2002 for a mandatory injunction complaining that the appellant herein has encroached a portion of his property and hence, sought for demolition of the construction put up in the encroached portion and to restore his possession. The said suit after contest has been decreed. Aggrieved by the same the appellant herein preferred appeal in R.A.No. 1 17/2009. Which is pending and interim order of mandatory injunction is granted. During the pendency of the Civil proceedings as per annexure 'A', the City Corporation Gulbarga has regularized the deviation by collecting the penalty at '250/- per Sq.Mtrs. It is that regularization of deviation is challenged in this writ petition.3. The learned Single Judge after hear...
Sri K.Gopal S/O Kannappa Mudaliar. Vs. Smt K.Navaneetha W/O K.Gopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.49/2001. on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, wherein the appellant has been directed to give the vacant possession of the 'B schedule property as shown in the plaint.2 At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already vacated and handover the plaint B' schedule property. Therefore, in view of the same, the appeal has become in fructuous.3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though the appellant has vacate d the premise, still he has kept Kadapa Slabs and he has not removed his Scooter. Therefore, she submits that the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant is incorrect.4. The appeal is for admission.5. If the appellant is not willing to pursue this appeal, we cannot consider the grievance of the respondent. Since, the respondent has also fil...
J.V.Srinwasa S/O Late Venkatachalapathy and ors Vs. Karnataka State Ho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners have made the following prayers: -W.P.Nos.21314-324 Of 2010"Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 4 to consider and dispose off their applications as well as representations in Annexure-A. as expeditiously as possible but within a time li.iut. in implementation of IDSMT Scheme and to grant such other relief on the lines indicated by this Hon'ble Court in order dated. 07.10.2010 in W.P.No. 12923 of 2010 (in Annexure-D) and connected matters and to grant such other relief in the interest of justice." W.P.NOS.20969-2102S Sr. 21716 OF 2010 Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court mag be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 4 to consider and dispose off their applications as expeditiously as possible but within a time limit, in inq. Aementa.uon of IDSMT Scheme and to grant such other relief on the lines indicated by this Hon'ble Court in order, dated 27.11...
M/S T Export Syndicate (India) Ltd and anr Vs. Vkatakrishna S/ O Venka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Notice to respondent dispensed with, inasmuch as the respondent has remained absent in CM.RNo.290/2009.2. In Sub-paragraphs-3 and 4 of paragraph-4 of the order dated 02.03.2010, in CMP.No.290/2009, the following portion is typed:-"In the event, if unanimous decision is not reached by the arbitrators, it is open for the arbitrators to appoint an umpire with mutual consent. The Arbitrators shall enter into Arbitration and proceed in accordance with law."3. The aforementioned portion has crept in due to clerical mistake. Hence, the said portion needs to be deleted. Accordingly the same is deleted, in its place the following paragraph shall be added."The two arbitrators mentioned above shall nominate/ appoint an umpire-third Arbitrator unanimously, of their choice. The learned arbitrators axed umpire, on receipt of a copy of this order, shall enter upon reference, issue notice to the parties and then proceed to resolve the dispute, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration an...
Krishnayya Shervegara S/O Sheshappayya Shervegara and ors Vs. Smt. Vas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The appellant was the defendant before the trial court and is before this court against concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. The trial court, on consideration of the material documents and the pleadings of the parties, has held that the plaintiff though was temporarily absent from the suit properties, it could not be said that he had not established ownership and possession of the land and accordingly decided the suit as prayed for and the judgment having been confirmed by the lower appellate court, the present appeal is filed.2. As could be seen, there is no substantial question of law dial would arise for consideration in a suit for bare injunction. Since the trial court has proceeded on the basis of pleadings and the evidence, it cannot be said that it would wan ant consideration by this court in a Regular Second Appeal as there is no infirmity to be readily found.3. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that he has a right in the suit...
A.Mahabaleswara Bhat S/O A.Shankarnarayana Bhat Vs. Venkataramana Pras ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. The instant Misc. Application is filed by the appellant through his Counsel seeking appropriate direction, directing the Director of NIMHANS. Bangalore, to nominate a competent doctor for assessing the appellant's I.Q. as on date and the repercussions in future and submit the report including the competency of the appellant to continue his profession as an advocate.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 Insurer.3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application. Misc. Cvl. 18603/2010 is allowed. A direction is issued to the Director of NIMHANS, Bangalore, to nominate competent doctor/s for assessment, of appellant's I.Q. and his health condition as on date and whether he would be competent to continue his profession as an advocate and to submit a report as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant is directed to appear through...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »