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.
Sri.G.Manjunath, S/O Late R Gopa Vs. Smt.G.Shashi, W/O Sri.K.R.Srnivas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This is defendant's appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 25.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.1 153/2006 on the file of XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The suit filed in the Court below is for partition. The parties to this proceeding are none other than brother, sisters and mother.3. In this appeal at the intervention of their well wishers, parties to the appeal have settled the dispute amongst them and in that behalf, a compromise petition in Misc.Cvl.No. 19197/2010 is filed. The said compromise petition is filed by appellant and countersigned by his counsel and on behalf of respondents, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have affixed their signature to the compromise petition, which is countersigned by counsel appearing for the respondents. All the parties are present before the Court. Each of the parties admits and accepts the terms of compromise petition and admit execution of the same. In terms of the aforesaid compromise, appellant has paid a sum of Rs.5,75,000/-to resp...
Sri. Erappa, S/O Peddappa, Vs. Smt. Laxmamma W/O Late Ningappa and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court in a shit for bare injunction. The suit having been dismissed, the same was carried in appeal. In appeal, the appellant sought to file additional documents under an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as "CPC" for brevity). That application was kept over to be heard along with the main appeal and the lower appellate Court thereafter considered the same and has held that the additional documents would enable the Court to give its findings on the dispute and has allowed the application while allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant would primarily contend that Order XL1 Rule 27 CPC prescribes conditions which are required to be satisfied before an application could be allowed and the...
Sri Vrushabendrappa, S/O Late Ramappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The rejection of the petitioners claim for regularization in the services of the State of Karnataka. Department of Minor Irrigation by order dated 18.12.2009 Annexure Q has resulted in this petition.2. Learned Government Pleader is correct in his submission that a daily wage employee has no right to claim regularization since the appointment on daily wages was not following the recruitment rules, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka .Vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported 2006 (4) SCC 1 and in Mehboob Deepak. .Vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another reported in (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 239. 3. The appointment of the petitioner as daily wages admittedly not in terms of the rules or the constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India is a nullity. Though due to some exigency of work, although the petitioner was engaged on daily wages during the years 1977 to 1980, and the alleged termination was ...
The Administrative Medical Officer Government Hospital and ors Vs. Smt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The appellant Challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Holenarasipura., in O.S. NO. 14 6/2003 dt.1.6.2005.2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:The Respondent filed the suit against the appellants herein as an indigent person claiming damages of Rs.5 lakhs with interest. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff married one Rangegowda in the year 1987. Out of the wed-lock, she had two sons. On account of the financial difficulties she opted to undergo family planning operation.Accordingly, she under went Tubectomy surgery arranged by Health and Family Planning Department sponsored by the State of Karnataka in the camp held in the year 1991. Accordingly, Tubectomy operation was conducted on her. From 1991 to 1997 though she had sexual enjoyment with her husband, she did not conceive. But all of a sudden in the year 1998, September, she gave birth to a female child. Therefore, the suit was filed claiming d...
State of Karnataka Vs. Dandeppa S/O. Nagappa and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by State being aggrieved of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01/07/2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Kudljgi I.n C.C. No. 492/1999, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966.2. When this matter was posted for final hearing, the learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objections with regard to the competency in preferring this appeal before this Court.3. The preliminary objections raised by the respondent is to he considered before going into the merits of the case.4. The Inspector of Railway, Outpost, Hospet lias filed a complaint. The brief facts leading to the case are that accused I persons have committed theft of cut rails of different size and M.S. Scrap weighing about i9.523 mtr worth of Rs. 1,56.782/-from Kottur Railway Station Yard. As such complaint was registered under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 hereinafter cal...
M/ S. Usha Housing Development Company Limited, Vs. Smt. P. Jayamma, W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the order directing to pay a deficit stamp duty and penalty of 119,80,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs eighty thousand only).2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under;The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for construction of commercial and residential apartment under the memorandum of understanding dated 28th march, 1995. Under memorandum of understanding, the respondents produced the receipts dated 24.01.1995 at Annexure-B, C and D and paid amount of 20,00,000/ -, 5,00,000/-and 5,0O,000/- respectively. In pursuance of the payment the receipts were executed. Thereafter, it appears that there was a mis-understanding between the parties and ultimately the petitioner has instituted a suit in O.S.No.6128/2002 for the specific performance alternatively claiming an amount off 75,67,500/-.After institution of the suit, the defendants filed an application under the Order 13 Rule 8 r/w. Sections 33 and 34 of the K...
State of Karnataka Vs. D.M. Venkatesha, S/O. Muthegowda and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 26.06.2004 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu in S.C.No.26/2001 acquitting the Respondents for the offences U/Ss.302 and 307 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.2. The allegations against the accused is that on 26.09.1998 at about 10.00 p.m. in Shanivarasanthe all the accused with a common intention committed murder of deceased Prasad by stabbing him with knife thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.302 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention, they have assaulted CW2 with such an intention and under such circumstances, that if by that acr, they had caused the murder of CW1, they would have been guilty of murder, thereby they have committed an offence punishable U/s.307 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in ail 21 witnesses arid got marked Ex.Pl to ...
B.C. Chandrappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in W P No.38111/1993 being aggrieved by the order dt. 13.2.2002. Wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent in W P. - The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub Division. Bangalore in VPC Appeal No.4/93-94 dt. 9.9.1993 as per Annexure C to the Writ Petition and dismissed the Writ Petition.2. The materia] facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge, are as follows:It is the case of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition that first petitioner is the husband of second petitioner and third petitioner is their daughter. First petitioner purchased the site No. 13 under sale deed dt.26.8.1987 from one Manjunath Vaman Naika as per Annexure A to the Writ Petition. Second petitioner acquired site No. 14 as per Annexure B' to the Writ Petition on dissolution of partn...
The Bangalore Education Trust and ors Vs. Sri. C P Lokesha S/O. Late S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner an educational institution having engaged the respondent as a clerk found him to have absented from duties without prior permission or sanction of leave, and therefore appointed another person in his place without issuing a notice to the workman. This led to filing an appeal under Section 94 of the Education Act 1983, whence the Educational Applegate Tribunal in M.A. (EAT) 2/2007 by order dt.28.9.2010 Annexure-G allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to take the respondent to duty from 2.11.2010 with back wages at the rate of Rs.6,720/- p.m. from 10.2.2009 to 2.11.2010 along with cost of Rs.3,000/-. Hence this writ petition.2. In the admitted fact that the termination of the respondent-workman was not preceded by an enquiry over the allegations of unauthorized absence, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in the order impugned. The writ petition being without merit is accordingly rejected.In view of the...
Sri Jayaram. and ors Vs. Sri K.S.Nagendra Prasad and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Claimants in MVC 5455/2004, 5456/2004. 5459/2004 on the file of MACT (SCCH-9) are the appellants in these appeals.2. Parties will be referred according to their ranking before the Tribunal for convenience.3. Facts necessary for the consideration of the appeals are that on 26.4.2003 the petitioners were travelling with their relatives on a pilgrimage from Bangalore to Nandi Hills in a tempo traveller bearing Regn. No.KA05-A-5684. On Devanahalli - Vijayapura road near Kurubarakutne cross a Maruthi van bearing registration No.KA04-P-5800 dashed against the tempo traveller. On account of the negligent driving of Maruthi van by its driver the accident has occurred, in the accident petitioners sustained injuries, have sought for just compensation.4. In the objections, the insurer of Maruthi van has contended that the liability of the company is in accordance with the terms of the policy. Claim of the claimants is exaggerated. So pray for dismissing of the claim application.5. Tribunal fra...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »