Karnataka Court November 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 V.Srinivasappa, S/O. Late Venkatarayappa Vs. Smt. Savitramma, W/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.625/08 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), at Kolar. The suit is for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 20.12 04 and 23.10.07. The respondent / defendant have filed written statement and have contested the claim of the petitioner.2. Noticing the fact that, the suit documents are insufficiently stamped, the Trial Court has passed an order dated 6.09.10 holding that, the plaintiff is liable to pay duty and penalty, which has been determined at ?42,350/-.3. The plaintiff filed memo dated 28.1.10 / 15.2.10 (Annexure-E) to dismiss the suit as not pressed. While considering the prayer in the said memo, noticing the fact that the plaintiff has not remitted the duty and penalty payable on the instruments determined at 42,350/-, in exercise of the power under S.33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, the Act), the two instruments have been impounded and the office was directed to send the instruments to the Deputy Commis...
M/s. Paison Food Process A Proprietary Firm And M'ss Rashmi K, Vs. the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Petitioners have sought for a direction to declare that the: letter dated 26.10.2010 vide Annexure-L, obtained from petitioner No.l was under the undue threat of the proposed advertisement vide Annexure-K.2. The records reveal that the petitioners have approached Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA.No.695/2010. The matter is still pending. During the pendency of the matter, petitioner No.l seems to have issued a letter dated 26-10.2010 vides Annexure-L to the respondent-bank. In the said letter, she has stated that she will withdraw the application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.3. Since the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is open for the petitioners to take all the grounds urged before this Court in these writ petitions and also seek the very prayer as sought for in these writ petitions. Petitioners cannot approach this Court by overlooking the remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal particularly when the matter is pending before the Debt R...
Sri.Puttappa @ Anthoney, S/O George Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
JUDGEMENTS1. This appeal is by the accused being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court No.l, Bangalore, in Sessions Case No.373/20()6 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC in convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default sentence of three months simple imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution, the complainant and the accused are the residents of L.R.Nagar. The complainant was working under one Khader in C.M.M. Stores at L.R.Nagar. The accused having addicted to vices, was in the habit of demanding money from the complainant frequently and. that on 7.8.2005 when the complainant went to open the shop, accused approached him for money and when the complainant refused to make payment, he raised a quarrel with him and abused him in filthy language, also threatened him with dire consequences and stabbed him with a knife on his stomach....
Sri. Praveen Sancheti and Smt. Gulabdevi Sancheti, and ors Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. petitioner No.1 and his counsel are present2. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of Respondent No.l - State. He submits that a suitable order may be passed.3. Respondent No.2 and her counsel are present. The affidavit of Respondent No.2 dated 10.11.2010 is filed. The affidavit reads as under:"I, Smt. Nilam lain, wife of Praveen Sanchetti, daughter of Pukhraj Jain, aged about 26 years, residing at No.3/Y, 3rd Floor, G.K. Apartments, 15th Main Road, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010, Jo hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:- 1. I am the Respondent No.2 in the above case. I know the facts of the case. 2. I had filed a complaint against my husband and his family members before the Respondent No.l, 3. After the filing of the above said case and due to which is pending before the IX ACMM, Bangalore. The intervention of elders and family members of both the families the matter is settled out of the Court.4. I have received...
Sri M.Devendra Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner end learned Government Pleader for the State.2. As per the averment of first information, the petitioner is the husband of first informant. They had a son. He died in the year 2000; Thereafter, wife of petitioner left the house of petitioner and she was staying in her parental house. The petitioner brought a woman and kept her in hie house. The first informant (wife of petitioner) became mentally imbalanced. The petitioner and the said woman were harassing first informant on 5.10.2010, the said lady brought 10 to 15 persons, who were her close relatives and picked up a quarrel with first informant. On the same day at about 7.00 p.m., petitioner and said lady chased first informant and assaulted her and also tried to set fire by drowsing kerosene.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner has produced certain photographs to show that petitioner, after the death of his son had taken one Latha as second wife with the consent of first informant. Ther...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Kumar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. These live appeais by the appellant - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the common order dt. 28/3/2007 in W.C.Nos. 153. 156, 185, 186 & 187/2006.2. By the impugned judgment, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Chitradurga, has awarded compensation to the respective workmen for the injuries suffered by them in an accident that occurred on 16/12/2005 involving the Tractor-Trailer bearing NO.KA-06/TA20-21 along with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from expiry of thirty days from the date of accident till the date of deposit. M.F.A.Nos.8326/2007 c/w 8321-8324/20073. The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Co. is that the interest awarded by the Commissioner on the compensation awarded is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MOHD. NASIR reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Commissioner ought to have award...
Mrs. Padmavathy W/O G. Thamotkaran Vs, Mrs. P. Kamalamma W/O Late C. P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. The first plaintiff is in appeal questioning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No. 10627/1995 dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession.2. Incidentally, we notice that the suit was filed by two plaintiffs i.e., appellant and respondent No. 12.3. The facts germane for the disposal of the case can be summarized as follows:4. During the course of judgment, parties would be referred to as per their ranking m the Trial Court.5. One Chillara Angadi Chinnappa was the son of Kadirappa and was residing at Bangalore. The case of the plaintiffs is that Kadirappa was a Gang Mastery in the Madras Railways. He had five children Narayanswamy Naidu alias Muniswamiappa. Chillara Angadi Chinnappa and Narayanaswamy alias Muniappa and two daughters whose names are not known to plaintiffs. Kadirappa's wife predeceased him, son Narayanaswamy Naidu alias Muniswamiappa and his two daughters expired in their marital homes. Kadirappa who was of humble origin die...
Sri.Roshan D'Souza Vs. Smt.Suzan D'Souza And Anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 13.03.2010 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.. Mangalore in Crl.M.sc.Case No.50/09 cancelling the bail order granted to the petitioner on 24.10.2008 and directing the Investigation Officer to take the petitioner into custody.2. The parties will be referred with reference to the status before the Court below.3. The primary facts of the case is as under:That on 02.08.2008. the petitioner/ complainant had filed a complaint against her husband and his parents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, further read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On the basis of the said compiaint. Crime No. 176/2008 was registered at Ullal Police Station. Accused No.l is the husband, accused No.2 is mother-in-law and accused No.3 is father-in-law of the petitioner/ complaina...
Sri Munishamappa, S/O. Ethugal Nanjappa, Vs. Sri D.Venkateshappa and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed O.S.30/2008 against the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Kolar for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property described in the schedule of the plaint. Along with the client, I.A. was filed under 0rder 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the 1st defendant/petitioner from putting up construction over the suit property. The petitioner/1ST defendant filed written statement and objections tc LA. The Trial Court finding LA. To be meritorious, has allowed the same by an order dated 19.2.2007. The petitioner questioned the said order in M.A.22/2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Kolar. The said Court by its judgment dated 19.1.2010 has dismissed the appeal. This writ petition is directed against the said order and judgment Unrepresented.2. Respondents 1 to 5 though served, have remained3. Heard Sri B.N.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.4. Kee...
Sri Madhu @ Madhusudhan, S/O H. Guchappa Vs. M.R. MohiuddIn Shariff, S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1400/2005 dated 18.8.2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge and MACT, Mandya. The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal and the respondents were the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the second respondent - Insurance Company to pay compensation. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. The Doctor, who had examined the claimant, has stated that the claimant had suffered 20% permanent disability to the right hand and about 10% permanent disability to the whole body. The claimant is an agriculturist and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. It is further argued that the Tribunal...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »