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.
Smt. Ramakka, W/O Bheemanna Vs. Smt. Sharadamba, W/O Late Papanaik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case:On 30.7.2000, when the claimant was travelling in the bus bearing registration N0.KA-O6-A-66O6 near Bidarakere Tank, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, she filed a claim petition before MACT, Madhugiri seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,16,000/- 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 arises for my consideration in the appeal is:"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?5. Alter hearing the learned co...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathi Rajashekar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Misc. Cvl. 12002/2009 is filed by Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing fcr the appellant for condemnation of delay of 363 days in filing the application for recalling the order dated 28lh May 2008.2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.3. The delay of 363 days has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit filed along with the application and hence, the same is accepted.4. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with the said application, Misc.Cvl. 12002/2009 is allowed. Delay in filing the recalling application is condoned, subject to deposit of costs of 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) before the High Court Legal Services Committee, within two days from today, failing which, the order dated 28"1 May 2008 shall stand restored without any further orders5. Misc.Cvl. 12004/2009 is filed for recalling the order dated 28"' May 2008. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with the said application, th...
Agadoorappa S/O Late Nagarappa, and ors Vs. Sri. Chokkappa S/O Late Ag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. The appellants were the defendants before the trial Court in a suit for bare injunction and subsequently for additional relief of mandatory injunction. The suit was contested. At the stage of evidence however defendant No.4 who was examined as D.W.I admitted that the plaintiff had purchased the property under Ex.P3. It was further admitted that the recitals in Ex.P3 are true and correct. It was also stated that schedule "B" passage was found mentioned in the said sale deed and that the plaintiff would have a "right over the said passage. This was marked as Ex.P3(A). It was on that basis the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit having regard to the admitted circumstance that he was indeed the owner of the property and if. View of the admissions by the said witness as to the existence of the passage and mention of the same in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. That having been challenged in appeal, the appeal was dismissed against which the present second appeal is fil...
The Commissioner of Income-tax and anr Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Substantial question of law in this appeal is as under:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that an appeal was maintainable u/s.248 of the Act, even though there was no adjudication by the Authorities under the Act in accordance with Section 195(3),(4) & (5) read with Section 200 of the Act?The substantial question of law arising in this appeal is held against the Revenue in ITA No. 1/2008 based on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others Wis. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., & Ors., ( 2010) 320 ITR 209. By virtue of the said decision it was held that the appeal filed under section 248 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable and therefore the appeal filed by the assessed under section 248 of the Act is maintainable and held against the Revenue. In views the same, substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is answered against the Revenue.Consequently confirming the order of the Tribunal was direct the appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals)...
Smt. Deveeramma Vs. Krishnamurthy.K.S. and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 3rd March 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.69/1999, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadravathi. (For short Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 767,400/- awarded in favour of the claimant as against her claim for 74,50,000/-, is inadequate.2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant appellant herein is none other than the single parent of the deceased Late Kum. Rathna. She filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 8:20 A.M. on 21-12-1999. When the deceased Kum. Rathna was travelling in the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.CTS-8636-37, as loader and un-loader of mud in the said tractor-trailer, she met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Tractor-trailer and she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.3. It ...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Vs. Sri L ShivalingaradhyA ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of finally.2. The KSRTC is the petitioner herein and it is aggrieved by the Labor Court, Chikmagalur allowing the application filed under Section 33(C-2) by the respondent and granting encashment of weekly off for 350 days.3. The respondent, while working as a Conductor in the Corporation used to be on the route from Sakaleshpur to Bangalore and it was his case that, he was not given weekly off, but however, he was entitled to double pay and as the petitioner used to start his work at Sakaleshpur at 5.00 A.M and reach Bangalore at 12.30 noon and on the following day at 1.15 P.M. he used to leave Bangalore and reach Sakaleshpur at 9.00 P.M. The respondent therefore worked only for 15 days in a month. It is his case that, as he was not given any weekly off, he was entitled for C.off as per the Corporation rules and regulations and therefore as the amount to which he is entitled for the period from ...
State of Karnataka Vs. Pyarusab, Son of Inayath Sab. and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court-IV, Kolar. in S.C.No. 177/1999 acquitting the respondents/accused No. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/sec. 324 and 307 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:One Flaseena Begaum. daughter of Accused No.l Pyarusab. Was given in marriage to PW2-Naseer Ahamed-younger brother of PWl-Khadar Pasha and their marriage was performed about 5 months prior to 6.8.1995. On 1.8.1995 said Haseena Begaum left the matrimonial home without informing anyone. In that regard when PW1 and others went to the house of the accused, they quarreled with PW1. At about 6.30 p.m. on 6.8.1995 when PW1 was proceeding on the road from his house, accused No.l and his daughter Dulshad assaulted PW1 with stone on the head. In the meanwhile. PW2-Naseer Ashamedly and PW3-Sardar Pasha came to the rescue of PW1. At that time Accused No.2 and accused No.3 who" are sons...
Sri. Vasantha Vs. the State Police Sub-inspector
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner in the above petition has sough!: for quashing of proceedings in Special Case No. 18/08 pending on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Special Court. Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore State.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner by obtaining a false caste certificate, that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe, obtained an appointment in New Mangalore Port Trust as a work mate in a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and committed an offence under Sec. 3(1)(9) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A case has been registered and charge sheet is filed by the respondent - CRE Cell, Mangalore.4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, he was issued with the caste certificate by the then Tahsildar, Mangalore, on 28-8-82 and he joined for service with New Mangalore Port Trust as work mate against ...
Sri. Jameer Pasha Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.7.2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Devanahalli, in C.C.No.329/2003 ar.d also judgment and conviction order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Crl.A.51/2008 and acquit the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is heard on final disposal. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments only in respect of legality of the sentence, calling for the lower Court records is also dispensed with.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments only in respect of the legality of the sentence. He does not urge on the merits of the case except le...
Smt Gayathri W/O M.R.Ramachandra Vs. Sri R Ravtkomar S/O Ramakrishna G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the XXII Addl. CMM and XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in CC No.9792/2005 dated 18.4.2007, wherein the accused was acquitted and complaint was dismissed,2, According to the complainant; he lent hand ban of Rs.7,50,000/ - agreeing to repay the said amount in monthly instalment of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at 1,5% per month. But the accused tailed to pay the installments as per the undertaking. When the complainant demanded persistently, the accused agreed to pay in one lump-sum and the accused towards repayment of the loan amount with interest thereon had issued a cheque for Rs.750,000/ - dated 3.11.2004 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Hi-Tech Agriculture Finance; Branch ranganagar, Bangalore, On presentation of the same, the same was dishonored with an endorsement 'account closed', Subsequently. After causing legal notice, case came to be filed, The Trial Court, after enquiry dismissed the compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »