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.
Smt. Kamalamma W/O Bomme Gowda and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The petitioners claim to have lost their properties on account of the compulsory acquisition of lands for the benefit of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.2. Sri K.S. Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being rendered rootless and roofless, as the only house-properly/site is being taken away by the respondents. He would therefore pray for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations in Annexure - K series for the allotment of alternative sites.3. Sri K. Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that, except the first petitioner, all other petitioners have purchased the sites in question after the issuance of the preliminary notification. He further submits that some of the petitioners and their vendors had impugned the acquisition notifications, but all their challenges are negative. He also takes exception to the petitioners' conduct of not disclosing this material inform...
D Simharaju S/O H a Devarajaiah Vs. Sri Seetharam C.N. and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDERJ.S.Khehar. C.J. (Oral)1. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr.Vidyashanl.ar, Principal Secretary, E-Governance, State of Karnataka, Mr.Shambu Dayal Meena, Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mr.Lakshman Rao Peshwe, Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mr.Scetharam, Secretary, Department of Women and Children Welfare and the other officers, who have attended to the proceedings of this case, for having volunteered to assist this Court on the controversy raised by the petitioner. Needless to mention, that the controversy raised in the main case pertains to providing facilities in Government offices to individuals, who suffer from different kind of physical disabilities. From the pleadings that have been filed in this case, it emerges, that most of the prayers sought by the petitioner have been fulfilled. However, the issue of providing facilities for persons with disabilities, being a very important issue, it was felt, that a continuing programme for upgrading faci...
Sri. Beereshwara Swamy Trust (Reg.) Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petition is filed seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondents or an appropriate direction, apprehending dispossession of the petitioner from the property bearing S.No. 129/1 and 127/2 except an area of 8 guntas taken over by MUDA.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:The petitioner Trust is said to be in existence since time immemorial and that here is a Temple constructed by the Trust wherein the people belonging to Kuruba community attend and offer prayers and that these being the facts, some of the persons who were in occupation of the house properties as tenants, were issued notice by the Tahsildar directing them to vacate the premises and in the circumstances, the petitioner apprehended that the action will be taken by the revenue authorities to dispossess them from the land bearing R.S.No. 127/2 and 129/1 and in these circumstances, have filed this petition seeking an appropriate order.3. Today, the counsel for the petitioner ha...
Harish KandavarA. Vs. Smt. Dr. Sabina K. (Major), W/O. Sri. C. Suresh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. Brief facts of the case are:That on 26.04.2005 when the claimant was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-L-3738 from Koto Moorkai side towards Karkada side on NH 17 road, near Saligrama Town Panchayath Office, a car bearing registration No. KL-13-L-5115 came from Kundapura side towards Udupi side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, as a result the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT. Kundapura seeking compensation of 10,00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.52.000/-with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, negligence and liability of the Insurer of the offending vehicle the only point that remains for consideration is:Whether the compensation awarded by...
Smt.Chandramathi W/O Late Halappa Vs. Sri.H.Mjagadisha, S/O Patel Manj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No. 121/2005 dated 11.01.2007 in reversing the finding of the learned Magistrate and acquitting the accused.2. The complainant has filed a case against the accused before the JMFC, Sakleshpur, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for the dishonor of cheque issued by him amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for insufficient funds. The learned Magistrate, after enquiry.has convicted the accused, but the lower appellate Court on the appeal filed by the accused, has reversed the finding of the trial Court and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.3. Heard.4. According to the complainant, she had lent Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and towards repayment of the same the accused had issued a cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Shukravarasanthe Branch, whereas according to the accused, there was no transaction between the complainant and the accused and the complai...
Mr. Mohammad, S/O. Aboobakar, Vs. Mr. M. S. Mohammad, S/O. Mr. Soopi B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. Brief facts of the case are:That on 10.06.2004 when the claimant was travelling along with his employer in an Ambassador ear bearing registration No. KA-19-N-2727 from Mangalore to Vittal near Narahari Nagar of Golthamajalu village. Bantwal Taluk on NH No. 48 a bus bearing registration No. KA-20-C-7577 came in a rash and negligent and dashed against the car as a result the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT, Mangalore seeking compensation of 7.5.00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.83,000/- with interest at 8% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, negligence and liability of the Insurer of the offending vehicle the only point that remains for consideration is:Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and ...
The Branch Manager. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Jayashree and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Heard on Misc.Cvl. Nos. 1576/2009 and 1577/2009.2. Misc.Cvl. No. 1576/2009 is an application filed for condoning 1574 days delay in filing the recalling application.3. Misc. 1577/2009 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company for recalling the order dated 27.8.2004.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that on 27.8.2004, a weeks' time was granted to do the needful and if the same is not done, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution without further orders from the Court5. The respondents have not filed objections to both the applications.6. For the reasons stated in the application, Misc.Cvl. 1576/2009 is allowed and the delay in filing the application for recalling the order dated 27.8.2004 is condoned.7. For the reasons stated in the application. Misc. 1577/2009 is allowed and the order dated 27.8.2004 is recalled....
Gopal, and ors Vs. Venkataswamy S/O Sri. Peddaganaiah, and Srinivasa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The respondents who have been served and remain unrepresented.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The appellants and the second respondent herein are the sons of the first respondent. The third respondent is the purchaser of item no. 1 of the suit schedule property. The appellants had filed a suit against the respondents seeking partition of the suit schedule properties, namely item no.1, which was land measuring 2 acres 11 guntas in land bearing Survey No.93, Block No. 19; the adjoining land measuring 2 acres 1 gunta in Block No.20 of land bearing Survey No.93, Block No. 19; the adjoining land measuring 2 acres 1 gunta in Block No.20 of survey No.93 of Belavatha Village, Mysore; and item no.2 which was: another property bearing house no.71 of the same village, claiming that they were entitled to one-third Share each in the said properties, as the properties were claimed to be ancestral properties. They also contended that the...
Kum.Thara D/O Channabasavaiah Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner and deceased were roommates and they were working as workers in a Garment Factory at Peenya. It is alleged in the investigation records that on 12.6.2010 at 6.00 a.m., the petitioner spill kerosene in the room. When questioned by the deceased, the petitioner threw a lit 0f matchstick as a result of which the deceased suffered burn injuries. The petitioner ran away. The deceased was rescued by the neighbourers and she was shifted to Victoria Hospital.2. As per the statement of the neighbourers, the petitioner and the deceased were frequently quarrelling each other as the petitioner was using the cosmetics of the deceased.3. After going through the records, I find that there was no apparent motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. The attendant circumstances of the occurrence and the acts attributed do not suggest that petitioner had strong motive to cause death of the deceased. At this stage, there is no prima-facie case against petitioner for an o...
B.Lingappa, S/O. Basavegowda Vs. Smt.Ningamma, W/O Late Siddegowda, an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Respondent no.4 in MVC 43/04 on the file of Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Mysore is the appellant in this appeal.2. Parties will be referred according to their status found in the Tribunal.3. Necessary facts for the consideration of the appeal are as under:- Ningamma - wife of Nagaraja is the claimant in the claim petition. She contends that her husband was the earning member of the family. On 22.7.1993 at 11.30 PM, on account of rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing Regn.No.CAN 8042 the accident occurred. In the accident her husband sustained injuries and died. So, she sought for compensation. The case of the claimant is resisted among others by the appeal-ant also. Respondent no.4 denies the claim of the petitioner and contends the assertion of the petitioner that the vehicle is sold in favour of 4th respondent is incorrect. The assertion of the petitioner of the owner of the vehicle having given a delivery note dated 25.6.1984 is also denied and seek for dismissal of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »