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.
M.Chandra Mohan, S/O. Muniyappa Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
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 16.01.2007 when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-02-ER-1062 on Saraswathipura main road, near Dhanalakshmi Bar, Malialakshmi Layout, Bangalore-86 another motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-02-EW-1626 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle, as a result, he sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT. Bangalore seeking compensation of 2,2 5.000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.17,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of 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 ...
M/S.Arun Engineer Enterprises a Partnership Firm Vs. Karnataka Urban W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned communication vides Annexure-A dated 29.06.2009 by which the petitioner's prayer for grant of escalation charges is refused. A direction is also sought against the respondents to pay escalation charges of 31,92,000/- as per the recommendation of Chikknnaiyappa Committee, together with interest.2. The petitioner was awarded contract for execution of construction o...
K.R.Sandeep (Minor), S/O K.R.Ranganath Vs. Sri.Shivarudra, S/O Mallaia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No.7335/2005 on the file of MACT, Bangalore.2. The fact that the claimant, a minor, aged about 8 years, met with an accident on 02.09.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of mini lorry bearing No.KA-02/6534 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that as a result, he sustained grievous injuries to his left leg resulting in fracture of both bones of left leg and in this behalf he was inpatient in Government Hospital. Tiptur where he was treated conservatively by applying POP and he was inpatient in the said hospital for seven days. i.e. from 02.09.2004 to 09.09.2004.3. Thereafter the parents of the injured minor boy filed a Claim Petition on his behalf, seeking compensation. Before the Tribunal, claimant's father examined himself as P.W.I and also examined the doctor, who treated the interred as P.W.2. Evidence on record discloses that since the fracture was treated conventionally...
Chandranna, S/O Henjanna Vs. Smt. Gangamma and Narayanappa and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial Court in a suit for declaration of title. The plaintiff claimed that the property in question was granted to bins by the Village Panchayath and that the sale deed was also executed in his favour subsequent to the said grant in his favour. However, the plaintiff only produced certain demand extracts and lax paid receipts, on the basis of which, he claimed title to the suit property. The trial Court having decreed the suit in his favour, the same was challenged by the defendant in appeal. The lower appellate Court having found that Exhibits PI to P4, which were mere entries in the tax demand register and the tax paid receipts in respect of the particular year has held that it could not be said that it establishes the title of the plaintiff and also opined that since the plaintiff has tiled the suit for declaration, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish the same and onus cann...
State of Karnataka Vs. Shivanna, S/O Rangaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. The respondent/accused arraigned as Accused No.2 in S.C.No.24/2003 on the file Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan, along with 4 other accused persons, was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC on the allegation that on 17.11.2002 at about 3.00 p.m.. He along with other accused persons by sharing common intention, committed murder of one Mahesh. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal acquitted the Respondents/Accused Nos.2 & 5 of the charges leveled against him while convicted Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of Respondent/Accused No.2. the State has presented this appeal. The learned Additional S.P.P. submits that convicted Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 4 have not filed any appeal against the judgment of conviction, and no appeal is filed by the state regarding acquittal of Accused No.5.2) Under these circumstances, The point required to be considered in this appeal is. ...
The Manager Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. The parties and their counsel are present and present a joint memo reporting that the matter has been settled out of Court.2. The joint memo reads as follows:-"The appellants herein had filed RSA.No.2351/10 challenging the order of ejectment in the suit filed by the respondent and later confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Both the parties have come to an understanding and have decided to file this joint memo with the following conditions:1. The appellants shall handover vacant possession of the Ground floor portion of the suit schedule property on or before 31st January 2011.2. The first floor portion of the suit schedule property shall be in the exclusive possession of the appellant for a maximum period of six years from 1st February 2011 and the appellants shall vacate the premises on or before 31s' January 2017.3. The appellants shall from lsl February 2011, pay a monthly rent of Rs.9000/- per month with an increase of 5% every year.4. The appellants shall clear all out stand...
Valli Abdul Razaek Vs. K. Ibrahim S/O PallibA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. The appellant was trie plaintiff before the trial court, seeking injunction against the defendant from effecting structural alterations to the suit property by converting the mud walls into stone walls. The suit was resisted on the ground that the suit was incompetent, since the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property and further that the property being claimed as wakf property, the suit was filed without the wakf being made a party. The suit was however, decreed in favour of the plaintiff.2. The same having been challenged in appeal, the lower appellate court, however, has held that the suit was for bare injunction restraining the defendant from putting up permanent construction without obtaining3. It was noticed that the plaintiff was claiming that the premises was leased to one Abdul Rahiman on monthly rent and after his death his wife Bee Fathima and her six children continued in possession as tenants. Bee Fathima cdso having died, the plaintiff had continued to collect...
Aswatha S/O Mayee Gowda Vs. R Prasad S/O Rangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the XXXVI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A 642/2008 on 30.5.2009.2. On the case tiled by the complainant before the XVI Addl.CMM, Bangalore for the offence punishable under S.138of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonor of the cheque issued by the accused to the complainant, the trial court after inquiry, convicted the accused. In the appeal filed by the accused relying upon the decision in Krishna Janaradhana Bhat's case (AIR 2008 SCW 738). Holding that the existence of a legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption, the lower appellate court has reversed the finding of the trial court.3. However, in the case of Rangappa Vs Mohan - AIR 2010 SC 1898, the Apex Court has held, as per S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Presumption is always that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and the negative onus is on the accused to disprove the same.4. In view of the ratio laid down in t...
P.K.Jayakrishne GowdA. S/O Late Kalegowda, Vs. the Deputy Commissions ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents-Authorities in not conducting survey and failing to effect phodi of the land bearing Sy. No. 1 in which he claims to have interest to an extent of 2 acres.2. Petitioner claims that 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No.l of B.B.Kavalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District was granted in favour of his father on 02.09.1961. The petitioner has placed reliance at Annexure-A, grant certificate in this regard. After the grant was made, father of the petitioner passed away and the petitioner had applied for change of khata in his name. Accordingly, the khata was changed vide M.R.No. 12/88-89. It is also asserted by the petitioner that his name is entered in the RTC in respect of the land in question. Petitioner has made a representation to the 3rd respondent.-Tahsildar on 08.07.2009 to conduct survey and prepare the durasth sketch. After receiving the said representation, the Ta...
Sri. Surya Prasad S/O Late Nanjaiah Vs. Sri, C.V.Jayaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 has insntufcsd O.S.No.8698/2006 against the petitioner and the second respondent.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the first respondent/ plaintiff is not prosecuting the suit and the Trial Court has not shown eagerness to dispose of the suit. This writ petition is to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.3. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the record4. The issues in the suit was framed on 30.10 2009 and suit was posted for trial on 11.01.2010.5. The order sheet shows that, defendant No.2 lies died. Defendant No.1 filed memo with NOC of the Counsel and has stated that, he would appear in person. Suit was adjourned to 31.05.2010 It appears that, the. Plaintiff was not present on 31.05.2010 and 09.O7.201O and hence, the suit was finally adjourned to 09.08.2010, on which date the plaintiff and Counsel were absent. Defendant No. 1 has objected for the issues framed. The matter has been adjourned by imposing the cost.6. There does...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »