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.
Dr. Sudhakar Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner in the above petition has sought for setting aside the order dt. 3-10-07 passed by the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore city, in dismissing PCR No.21842/06.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 9 by arraying them as Al to A8. Before the trial Court under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that he is a member of St. Marks Cathedral Church, which is one of the constituent churches of Karnataka Central Diocese of the Church of South India and respondents 2 to 9 are the members of the said constituent churches.3. Accused No. 1 is presently serving as Bishop and Deputy Mediator of Karnataka Central Diocese and Church of South India, and by virtue of he being the Bishop is also the Chairman of all the Boards that fall under the Karnataka Central Diocese, accused No.2 is none other than the wife of accused No.l, accused No.3 is the Principal of Bishop Cotton Girls School and also Secretary of the Board of Management of the said school, accused No.4 is the Tr...
Sri. D.Wilson, S/O. A.P.Devaerajam Vs. the Director K.G.i.D. Vishveshw ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 28th April 2005, passed in M.V.C No.2122/2002, by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayo Hall Unit, and Bangalore (SCCH-20). (For short, Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 71.50,000/- awarded in his favour as against his claim for 710.00 lakhs, is inadequate.2. The appellant claims to be aged about 40 years and driver of heavy vehicle, getting income of 75,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 6:50 A.M., on 06-02-2002, when the appellant was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.KA-01/E-3768. near the bridge on Eijipura Main Road, the driver of the Bus bearing No.KA-01/G-1605, came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against his scooter. As a result of the same, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Sathya...
Smt.YashodhA. Vs. Chikkacheluvaiah. S/O.Motaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC praying to transfer the case in M.C.No. 1.69/2003 pending on the file of III Addl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore to Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Mandya.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed a petition for divorce in M.C.No. 169/2003 on the file of Family Court at Bangalore and that case was decreed experts. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application (registered in Misc.No. 104/2005) for setting aside the experts Judgment and Decree made in M.C.No. 169/2003 and that application was allowed by order dated 01.12.2007. Subsequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Again, the petition was got restored and now. The case is set down for filing objection in M.C.No. 169/2003. He submits that it is not convenient for the petitioner to attend the case at Bangalore. He also submits that the petitioner and her minor daughter have filed petition under Section 125(3) of Cr.P...
Bhoja Raj, S/O Halappa Vs. Althaf Ali Khan, S/O Late Liyas Ali Khan.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.317/2007 dated 19.9.2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACF, Harihar. The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal and the respondents were the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the third respondent - Insurance Company to pay compensation. The appellant has tiled this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The Doctor has opined that he had suffered 45 to 50% permanent disability. The claimant was working as a Mechanic at Harihar at the time of the accident. He was earning more than I00/- per day. The Tribunal has taken his income at 2,000/- per month which is on a lower side. Having regard 'o the nature of the injuries sustained by...
Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The orders at Annexure-F, H and K, dated 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008 and 3.9.2009 passed by the third respondent-Disciplinary Authority, second respondent and the first respondent, respectively, are called in question in this writ petition. By the order at Annexure-F, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Corporation imposed penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner under Rule 16(i)(d) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H. Both the orders are further confirmed by the Chairman of LIC of India under Rule 24 of the Rules, vide Annexure-K.2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Agent of LIC of India on 6.1.1987. She had produced the Transfer Certificate, bearing Admission No. 114/86-87, along with her application praying for agency. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner had bee...
Mohan Poojary Vs. Komba Poojary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal JS directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2007 In OS. No. 33/1996 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Udupi decreeing the suit for partition.2. Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties arc- referred to their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff and defendants are the children of late Koosu Poojarthi. Plaintiff contends that plaint A schedule property was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of their mcthei - Koosu Poojarthi for the benefit of the family. After the demise of Koosu Poojarthi, plaintiff and defendants continued to joint possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property. Plaint B schedule properties are the movable properties belonging to the joint family. Since the defendants refused to partition the schedule properties, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 33/1996 against the defendants for partition and separate possession of...
Sri Siddappa B.H, S/O Halappa Vs. Harish Kumar G.JaIn and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. H.K.GJain had filed O.S.195/1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Davanagere against the Davanagere Urban Development Authority for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. Along with the suit, an application had been fried for grant of an order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court by its order dated 16.4.1998 passed ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from forming the road on the plaint schedule property. The petitioner was the Commissioner of Davanagere Urban Development Authority between 5.10.2000 to 6.10.2000 and again between 13.11.2000 up to 11.4.2002. LA.10 was filed by the plaintiff under 0.39 R.2A CPC on 30.8.2001 to initiate action against the petitioner for disobeying the order of temporary injunction passed on 16.4.1998. To the said application, the petitioner has filed statement of objections on 4.9.2001. The plaintiff filed I.A.15 on 11.6.2002 for initiation of action for disobedience of ...
Sri. B.R.Sushilkumar, S/O. Rajagopal Naidu Vs. Sri. C.H. Chikkegowda S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 23rd February 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.2929/2001, by the XIV Additional Judge, Member, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-10), (for short. Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of ?1.49,000/-awarded in his favour as against his claim for 10.00 lakhs, is inadequate.2. The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years, working as Sales Representative, getting salary of 4,250/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 2:30 A.M. on 24-04-2001, the appellant met with an accident near Rajgopalnagar, on account of rash arid negligent driving by the Driver of Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-04/M-5158. Immediately, he was shifted to Hospital, where he took treatment.3. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges inc...
M/S Ideb Projects Private Limited Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. This application is filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 for permission to convene separate meetings of the shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the applicant-Company.2. The applicant is a registered company incorporated on 17.04.1997 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 under the name and style of M/s. Shandari Builders (South) Private Limited and commenced its business on 17.04.1997. Subsequently, the name of the applicant company was changed I DEB Construction Projects Private Limited as per the fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated 16.09.1999 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, and Bangalore. The name of the applicant company was again changed to IDEB Projects Private Limited as per the certificate of Incorporation dated 22.11.2005 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore.3. The registered office of the applicant company is situated at 9lh and 10lh Floors, Delta Towers, Sigma Soft-Tech Park, 7....
N.Suresh Babu S/O Narayana Reddy. Vs. Hediachandrari S/O Ramaswamy and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This is claimant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC 8041/2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The fact that the claimant was pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-U 9918 which met with accident on 02.07.2004 at about 1.30 a.m. against gas tanker bearing No.KA-21-A-507 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries to his head and other parts of the body, which resulted in his hospitalization from 02.07.2004 to 14.07.2004. During the said period lie was treated by orthopedic surgeon for the injuries suffered to bone and by neurological surgeon for the injuries suffered to skull resulting in damage to the brain due to the said injury.2. It is seen that thereafter injured filed claim petition seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the offending gas tanker. The said petition was clubbed along with the petition filed by the rider of the motorcycle who suffered injury in the said acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »