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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Parvatham.M a W/O GovindappA. and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Respondent no.2 in MVC 695/98 and 696/98 on the file of the Civil Judge. Sr. Dvn. & Addl. MACT, Sira are the appellants in these appeals.2. Parties will be referred according to their status found in the tribunal for convenience.3. The essential facts necessary for consideration of the case are as under:Claimants in both the cases along with T R Anjanappa were travelling In a lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-36-1729 along with their marriage luggage on hire basis. While the said lorry was in between Maranagere-Ujjanakunte road on NH4, the driver of the lorry is said to have driven the vehicle rashly negligently and it resulted in the accident. The claimants have sought for compensation for the pain, suffering and agony suffered by them on account of the accident. After recording evidence, the tribunal has awarded Rs.46,000/- to the claimant in MVC 695/98, Rs.26,4^/- in MVC 696/98.4. I earned advocate for the 2nd respondent contends that the claimants being the persons travelling in goods ve...
Sanna Chikkamma W/O Thimmanna Vs. M S T Vijaya Kumar and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. 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 27.12.2004, when the claimant was travelling in a Maxi-Cab bearing registration No. KA-16/2488 to go to her native place Maddanakunte along with other passengers via Chitradurga near Maleppanahatty Sri Veeranjaneya Temple, another Maxi-Cab bearing registration No.KA-17/8702 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their maxi-cab. As a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, she filed a claim petition before MACT, Hiriyor seeking compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded her a compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- 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 fo...
Augustus Jeba Ananth, S/O. P. Chandra Rose Vs. A.N.S.S. Patasekar, S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant against the dismissal of the complaint filed by him by the V Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes and 24 Addl. CMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in CC No.26999/2006 dated 31.1.2009.2. Heard.3. According to the complainant, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.15.00,000/ undertaking to repay the same within six months. The accused having agreed to repay the amount, issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- during March 2005, On presentation of the same to the Bank, it was dishonored for 'insufficient funds'. After issuance of legal notice, complaint came to be filed. The Trial Court holding that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2008 SCC (A) 54 [Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatreya a Hegdejj dismissed the complaint. Against which, the complainant is before this Court.4. In the recent case, reported in AIR 2010 8C 1898 jRangappa v. Mohan}, the Apex Court while reversing the ratio laid down in Krishna J...
G. Ankasetty, S/O. Late Gopasetty. Vs. M. Mahadeva, S/O. Late Mahadeva ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the JMFC-III, Mysore, in CC No.250/2008 dated 9.4.2008.2. The complainant is said to have lent in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused. Towards repayment of the loan, the accused issued a cheque dated 5.8.2005 for Rs. 1,50,000/- diawn on Mysore Silk Cloth Merchants Co operative Bank Limited, Kum.araswamy Layout Branch, Bangalore. On presentation of the cheque, it was returned with an endorsement, account closed'. After causing legal notice, case was filed. The Trial Court after enquiry, on the ground that there is no proper service of notice held that the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirement and also observed that the complainant has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.3. Heard.4. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, there is also a civil case filed, against which an appeal was preferred. Further, the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant towards legally enforcea...
Sri. R. Rangappa S/O Late Sri.Rangaiah Vs. State by Chennamanakere Aeh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the second respondent under Section 420 of I.P.C. In terms of Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate jurisdictional police. At the first instance, the respondents sought for anticipatory bail and the same was granted. Thereafter they appeared before the jurisdictional court, and sought for bail. The learned Magistrate having regard to the nature of the allegations and offences alleged against the respondents has granted Bail. The petitioner has now sought for cancellation of Bail.2. I have gone through the averments of the complaint, nature of offence alleged against the second respondent and the order made by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge has not committed any error in granting Bail to the second respondent.Therefore, this petition for cancellation maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed....
Sri. Mohan S/O Shri D. Chinnaraj Vs. Sri. D. Ravi S/O Sri. Dorai and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The appellant who is the claimant being not satisfied with the Judgment and Award dated C6.07.2007 made in MVC No.2710/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT for short) preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.2. The facts of the case are as follows:On 13.12.2005 at about 2.30 p.m., the claimant was crossing the road near Solur BP Gas Plant on Bangalore-Hassan road, at that time, the Maruthi Van bearing registration No.KA-C3-MC-8493 came with high speed and rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the said claimant sustained injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Harsha Hospital for first aid treatment, thereafter he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment. The police have registered a case against the driver of the said motor vehicle in Cr.No.276/2005. Due to the injury, the claimant has sustained severe injuries all over the body and he has sp...
Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma, W/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
:1. This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 03/03/2006 passed in MVC No. 7715/2004 by the X Additional SCJ and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-16), (hereinafter referred as ' Tribunal' for short).2. The Tribunal by its judgment .and award has awarded a sum of 74,21,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of 8,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Shivanna , in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased Sri. Shivanna and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of ?8,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 22.8.2004 at about 3.30 p.m.. the deceased was going on ...
Rengappa Bhovi Vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Misc. Cvl. 14023/2010 and Misc.Cvl. 14024/2010 is filed under Section 151 of CPC. Respectively praying to condone the delay of nine days in filing the recalling application and to recall the order dated 16th July 2010. Misc.Cvl. 13990/2010 is filed under Section 151 of application. CPC, praying for early hearing of the matter for the reasons stated in the affidavit, accompanying the said person is not present nor anybody has represented him. When the case is called, the petitioner - party - in- However, learned counsel appearing for respondent is present.2. After perusal of the aforesaid three applications, we notice that Misc.Cvl. 14023/2010 and Misc.Cvl. 14024/2010 are not in order, as per the High Court Rules and Practice. Office has rightly raised the objections. However, the party in person has stated in the affidavit that he is a jobless person and due to financial constraints, he has not filed the typed copy of the applications and therefore prayed to consider the manusc...
Sri Prasanna S/O Veerabhadrappa Vs. the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Heard on Misc. W. Nos. 9357/10 and 9356/10.2. These applications have been filed for recalling the order dt. 19.1.2010. Wherein finally two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which it was ordered that the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Bench. Since the office objections are not complied with within the time granted by this Court the appeal stood dismissed. Since there is a delay of 217 days in filing the application, the applicant has sought for condoning3. It is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent as the respondent has not been served with notice when the order dt. 19.1.2010 was passed.4. Having regard to the averments made the applications supported by the affidavit, we hold that sufficient cause is made out on payment of cost to recall the order as sought for in the application. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed. Delay in filing the application is condoned on payment of cost of Rs.300/-(Rs. Three...
J.P.Sujatha, W/O S.Nagaraju, Vs. Corporation Bank, Shantinagar Branch,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. This review petition is filed by petitioner on the ground that in the suit, O.S.No.2987/2010 filed by her, first defendant - Corporation Bank, Shantinagar Branch, K.H.Road, Bangalore, is not properly represented and the objection raised by plaintiff in this behalf is not considered and an order is passed on I.A.V which is challenged by her in W.P.No.20304/2010 and in the said Writ Petition, a specific ground was taken by her to the effect that there is miscarriage of justice in proceeding with the matter without there being proper representation on behalf of first defendant, i.e. Corporation Bank, Shantinagar Branch. The contention of the petitioner is that the person who has filed vakalath is not competent person to sign the vakalath and the power of attorney holder, who represented the first defendant had no authority to represent the bank for the reason that there is violation of procedure so far as it pertains to Order 6, Rule 14 and 14(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »