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.
Suit. Puttarangamma Vs. Bangalore Transport Service
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
JUDGMET 1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No.850/1997 on the file of MACT, Bangalore.2. The fact that the claimant, Smt.Puttarangamma, who was aged about 35 years in 1997, met with an accident while alighting from the bus bearing No.KA-Ol/F-66, belonging to respondent within the premises of its Bus Station in Subhashnagar is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident, she has suffered fracture of right side of hip for which she was hospitalized for a period of 40 days in Lady Curzon and Bowring Hospital.3. In the petition Hied by her seeking compensation, she adduced evidence as P.W. 1 and marked in all eight documents in support other case, she also examined a doctor by name P.Niranjan Murthy as P.W.2, who treated her when she was inpatient in Bowring Hospital. The said doctor has given opinion to the effect that the claimant sustained fracture of left hip, has sultered disability to the left lower limb to an exten...
Smt. Gangalakshmamma, W/O. Ashwaithaiahand ors Vs. Lingappa, S/O. Huch ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Respondent 4 has filed O.S. 184/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Tumkur for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioners have filed O.S.110/2008 in the said Court. The suit is for partition and separate possession. Some of the parties and the properties involved in both the suits are common. I.A.3 was filed by respondents 3 and 5. Under S.10 CPC, to stay further proceedings in the suit in O.S.110/2008. Said application has been allowed and the proceedings in the suit have been stayed till the disposal of O.S.184/2007. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs in O.S.110/2008 filed this writ petition.2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition papers.3. Since some of the parties in both the suits are common and as certain items of properties shown in the schedule of the plaint in O.S.110/2008 also appears in O.S.184/2007. Both the suits will have to be tried together and disposed of. Both the suits are pending i...
A.Shabbir Ahamed S/O Late Abdullah Vs. Sri.S A.Munaff S/O Late Syed Mo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This is defendant's appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2010 made in O.S.No.26751/2007 on the file of the 26"' Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge. Mayo Hall. Bangalore.2. The trial court has decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within three months from the date of judgment. The defendant was further directed to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till handing over possession of the suit schedule premises in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.3. The appellant and the respondent and their Counsel are present before the Court and joint memo is filed.4. As per the joint memo, the appellant does not press the appeal and prays time till 30.10.2011 to vacate the suit schedule premises. Further, the appellant agrees to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-plaintiff with effect from 01.01.2011 and that the damages would be ...
Sri. Govindappa S/O. Late Karnam Narayanaswamy and ors Vs. Sri. V. M. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the divergent finding recorded by the First Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 22.08.2005 in R.A. No. 101/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), KGB' district.2. When this appeal is at the stage of final hearing, the parties to the proceedings have entered into a compromise and accordingly a compromise petition is filed, which is numbered as Misc. Cvl. No. 19240/2010, filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.3 In the said compromise petition, appellant nos. 1 to 4 have affixed their signature and thumb impression. The counsel appearing for the appellant in identification of the same has affixed his signature to the said petition. So far as the sole respondent to concerned, he has affixed his signature, which is identified by the counsel appearing for him.4. The compromise petition is taken on record in the presence of the appellants, respondent and their respective counsel. The parties who haw appeared before t...
Sri N V Yogananda Kumar S/O Venkataramanaiah Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Presentation of these writ petitions combined with W.P.No.32187 & W.P.Nos.34096-98/2010 (LA-BDA) is in a most haphazard manner, with the registry over looking several defects and scrutiny branch getting active selectively and even when the defects are not rectified by the Advocate for the petitioners in accordance with the required procedure and law. Writ petitions passes muster with the registry and the matter is listed before the Court for preliminary hearing over looking its own objections pointing out the improper presentation of the writ petitions.2. Petitioners are two in number and claim interest in different extents of land in several survey numbers of Kodigehalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, and Bangalore North Taluk. 1st petitioner claims to be a graduate in agriculture and owner of 14 % (22 guntas) of land in Sy.No.5 in terms of sale deed dated 23.5.1998 and 31 guntas of land in Sy.No. 70/3 in terms of sale deed dated 29.9.1993 and 7.5 guntas of iand in Sy.No.70/4 ...
PremammA. W/O Devarajegowda, Vs. A.R.SureshA. S/O Ramegowda,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Defendant in OS 224/99 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, K R Pet is the appellant in this second appeal.2. Parties will be referred according to their position in the suit for convenience.3. Suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction, such other reliefs in regard to the suit schedule property bearing No.25, measuring 50 feet x 40 feet at Akkihebbal of K R Pet Taluk. It is contended by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is granted to his father on 22.2.1988. Hakku pacra is issued by the panchayath. Therefter, his father had put up a hut within two years, his father had paid the taxes to the panchayath, his father was in possession of the property till his death. Thereafter, it is his case that he is in possession of the property enjoying the same in his own right, title and interest.As defendant started interfering, he is obliged to file the suit for permanent injunction.4. In reply, ease of the defendant is that the claim of th...
Smt. Rajatha Sripada W/O. Sripada M G Vs. the State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Admittedly the 4th respondent is a resident of Gubbiga village which is at a distance of IV2 kms from Halebaniga village, of which the petitioner is a resident, while the Anganawadi kendra is located in the said village and therefore, the application of the 4,h respondent for appointment as Anganwadi worker in the anganawadi kendra at Halebaniga village deserved to be rejected, as observed by the Selection Committee at para 5 of the proceedings dt. 3.7.2007 Annexure-K.Apparently the Selection Committee having appointed the 4th respondent as the anganwadi worker of the said Kendra on the condition that she must shift her residence to Halebaniga village is not only arbitrary but perverse and illegal.2. Though learned counsel for the 4th respondent contends that the village in which the 4"1 respondent resides is 1 V2 kmt away from where the anganwadi kendra is located, nevertheless there being no anganwadi kendra in Gubbiga, there was justification for the Selection Committee to a...
Geeta M G W/O Jagdish Vs. the Head Master, Government Higher Primary S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner claiming to be a regularly appointed head cook in the first respondent Government Higher Primary School has presented this petition calling in question the order of termination from service.2. Learned Government counsel submits that the orders passed by the Government Higher Primary School in respect of service conditions of employees tantamount to "service matter" falling within the definition of the said term in Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and therefore needs to be adjudicated before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal constituted under the said Act.3. A bare perusal of the order Annexure A' terminating the service of the petitioner though not issued by the State Government nor material to establish that the petitioner was appointed to a civil post nevertheless states that the petitioner's services as Head Cook in the Government Higher Primary School, and therefore services under the State and hence the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Ac...
State Through Gandhinagar Police Station Vs. Vijaya @ Vijaya Havaldar, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 11.01.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Davanagere in S.C.No.36/2004 acquitting the respondent of the offence U/s.498-A and 302 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the deceased. Their marriage has taken place six months prior to the date of death. The accused had taken loan for purchasing auto rickshaw and had fallen into vices. He was pestering the deceased in respect of the payment of installments of loan for purchasing auto rickshaw and was physically and mentally ill-treating her, thereby it is alleged that he has committed an offence U/S.498-A IPC. It is further stated that on 19.1.2004 at about 3 p.m. the accused came to the house and fought with the wife and thereafter saying that if she is alive, fighting would took place, therefore, he took the kerosene and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 24.1.2004 at 11.45 p.m. T...
Sri G.J.Fernandez. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. The AppeaMTA No. 798/2009 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held that, for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. if separate accounts are maintained for such eligible business, then deduction under Section 80HIIC is to be computed on the basis of profit from such eligible business and the export turnover and total turnover of such business.2. The subject matter of these proceedings arise out of the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee is carrying on four different businesses. Out of the four businesses which he is carrying on. the business carried on under the name M/s Esmario Export Enterprises, dealing with sea foods and marine products is an export business. Therefore, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 30HHC by treating the profit of business as defined in Explanation (baa) of Section 80H11C as per the profits of all businesses and computed deduction under Section SOHilC in the proportion of export...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »