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.
Savithramma, W/O Late Shivashankare Gowda Vs. H B Mahadeva, S/O Late B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER 1. ON MISC.CVL.8610/2010 Heard on Misc.Cvl. No.8610/2010.2. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants for correction of the judgment, in so far as awarding 45% of the enhanced compensation amount. As per the judgment dated 4.6.2010, the enhanced compensation was apportioned among the appellants/claimant Nos.1 to 4 at the rate of 30%, 10%, 10% and 10%, respectively, and Ningajamma. The mother of the deceased, who was not made as party, was also granted 40% of the enhanced compensation amount.3. In para-8 of the impugned judgment, it is stated that if the mother of the deceased was no more, liberty was given to the appellant to produce the death certificate, in so far as the mother-in-law of the appellant, before the Tribunal along with an affidavit of the appellant No. 1. Under such circumstances, the share amount of the mother of the deceased would be apportioned among the appellants equally. Now the appellants have filed an a...
Sri B C Ananda S/ O Chikkanarayanappa Vs. the General Manager K.S.R.T. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 6.11.2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, SCCH-2, Bangalore in MVC No 1002/2001 seeking enhancement.1 The appeal is belated and has been filed after delay of 1394 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed seeking condonation. An affidavit supporting I.A.I/07 is filed by the appellant, in which, he has averred that after judgment was passed, he collected the judgment and award and kept the same in his house and due to shifting from rented house to his own house, he misplaced the judgment and award. In these circumstances, he could not instruct his Advocate to file an appeal. This is the only ground urged in the application Even if such statement believed, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why tor more than four years, the appellant did no tiling to place the papers or to obtain fresh copies, No sufficient cause for condoning such inordinate delay is forthcoming.3. How...
Anand @ Chikka Anand S/O Narayanappa and anr Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused No. 1 and 2 in S.C.No. 1071/2007 pending trial for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C on the file of Past Track Court-IX (FTC-fX).2. In Crl.P 3183/2010.dated 2.7.2010. This Court had granted bail to accused No.4. The Trial Court has granted bail to accused No.3.3. As per investigation records, accused No. 1 and 2 and other accused are alleged to have formed unlawful assembly and attacked the injured at about 8.00 p.m., on 31.12.2006 near Shivashankar Bar and Restaurant situate by the side of Devara Chikkanahalli. Accused No.3 and 4 are released on bail. These accused are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.4. The learned Government Advocate submits that over tact are attributed to these accused. The learned Government Advocate submits that the injured and other eyewitnesses have given statement that these petitioners and some unknown persons attacked the injured on 31.12.2006 at 8.30 p.m. The m...
Shivashankarappa, S/O Hanumanthappa Vs. B.V. Manjunath S/O Veerappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner and his counsel are present. The respondent and his counsel are present. Application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is filed, which reads as under:"1. That the petitioner has preferred the above Criminal Revision Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge I Fast Track Court Shimoga in Cr.A. No.150/07 partly allowing by reducing the compensation amount to Rs.65,000/- and confining the order dated 05-12-2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and ."MFC, Shikaripura. in C.C.No.412/2005 convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. Further directing to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.2. It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that wit...
Dundappa S/O Sidramappa Biradar and ors Vs. the Special Land Acquisiti ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The subject matter of these acquisition proceedings is the land bearing Sy.No. 136 measuring 21 acres 39 guntas in Nandageri Village Tq.Sindagi, Dist:Bijapur By a notification Under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. Dated 10.09.1987. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Murrum quary. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a very meager compensation of 4 000/- per acre as compensation. On a reference being made to Reference Court, an award dated 20.04.1996 was passed enhancing the compensation to 12.925/ per acre. It is that order of the reference Court, which is challenged in this appeal.2. There is delay of 4749 days in preferring this appeal. Even the Court fee is not paid in the appeal memo. The application is filed to permit the appellants to pay the deficit Court fee, after the enhanced award is passed by this Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the reasons set out are as under."Since, the dale of execution...
Smt. Revathi W/O. RamachandrA. Vs. Smt. Kiran.P.Suvarna, W/O. Padmanab ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
:1. This jopeal by the appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 05/11/2005 passed in MVC No. 692/2002 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Member. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV. Mangalore, (hereinafter referred as ' Tribunal" for short),.2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants have presented this appeal.The appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the mother of the deceased Sri. Ramachancra and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 21.10.2001 at about 6 30 p.m. the deceased was walking on the extreme side of the mud portion of the NH17 at Jappinamogaru in Mangalore Ta'uk and at that time, one Maruti Omni Van bearing No.KA. 19.N.4461 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner from Kas...
The Accountant General's Office Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is filed by respondent No.1 in W.P. No.38052/2001, being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 02.01.2003, wherein the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal"), Bangalore, dated 30.06.2001 in appeal No. 128/1999 is quashed and the award of the second respondent - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, is restored and the same is modified directing the first respondent - Co-operative Bank (appellant herein) to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) in respect of site No.127, which was originally allotted as per Annexure ' R1 to the objections statement in the writ petition, instead of site No.61, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The learned single Judge has further ordered that if site No. 127 was not available, then either site No.61 or any other site of dimension 40 feet x 60 feet of the same market v...
Kumari Sudha, D/O. Govindaraj Vs. P Nagamma, D/O. P Doddaiah
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 22.06.1998 when the claimant aged about 6 years was walking on the left side of the road near Bellavi village a car bearing registration No. RAO 1-3221 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her, as a result she sustained grievous injuries. Hence she filed a claim petition before MACT, Tumkur through her natural guardian father seeking compensation of 1,25,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 18,000/- 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 the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?5. After hearing the learned Counsel appearin...
Chandramma W/O Late Puttaraju, and ors Vs. Rafeeq Ahmed S/O Sabjan Sab ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. These two applications arc filed by the appellants for condensation of delay of 1768 days in filing the application for re-calling the order dated 09.08.2005 and for re-calling the order dated 09.08.2005, respectively.2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. Third respondent who is represented through the Counsel has not chosen to file any objections as on today.3. For the reasons stated in the affidavits filed along with the applications, the delay in filing the application to recall the order dated 9.8.2005 is condoned subject to the condition that learned Counsel for the appellants shall pay the cost of Rs. 1.000/-(Rupees One Thousand only), within one week from today before the High Court Legal Service Committee, failing which the order dated 09.08.2005 stands restored. The appellants are also not entitled...
Sri Gangadharaiah, S/O. Revannagowda, Vs. G.Naganna, S/O. Gangadharaia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Respondent 1/plaintiff has sued petitioner/defendant in O.S.156/1999 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kunigal, wherein the relief prayed is partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit was contested by filing written statement. Issues having been framed, trial has taken place. The petitioner has deposed as DW.l and he was cross-examined and discharged. After the closure of trial, petitioner filed 2 applications i.e., one for reopening of the case and another, to permit him to depose further by way of reexamination. The plaintiff has opposed the prayer in both the applications and the Trial Court has passed the common order', whereby, it has rejected the applications on the ground that:, there is no ambiguity which is required to be clarified by permitting DW.l to depose by way of re-examination. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed these writ petitions.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »