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 Ajay K.Gopal Vs. M/S Sideco Mohan and C.R.Jayachandra Varma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S. No. 1234/95 decreeing the suit of the respondent / plaintiff for recovery of money. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 12 23,916/- with future interest at 2% p.m. from the date of suit till realization on the entire amount and with cost.2. The facts are as follows:During the course of judgment the parties would be referred to as per the ranking in the trial Court.The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has registered office at Kochi, Ernakulam district. The plaintiff company is represented by Director-in-charge. Incidentally, it also happens to be a subsidiary company of Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation, a Government company fully owned by Government of Kerala. The defendant is the proprietor of M/s. Krishna Marketing Systems, having its office at No.457, 1st floor, 6th Cross, 2nd Bloc...
M/S Shreeji Trust and ors Vs. M/S Indian Bank and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. Learned counsel for the petitioners hand overs the demand draft dated 01.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs drawn on Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited which is payable at par at all HSBC branches in India drawn in the name of Indian Bank -A/c Angel wear Export.2. It is not in dispute that if the said DD is enchased, the condition imposed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in its order dated 27.2.2009 stands complied with by the petitioners, though not within the time stipulated in the said order. However, in the facts of the case, we do not see any justification to decline the benefit of the said order to the petitioners.3. In that view of the matter, the petitions preferred by the petitioners are allowed and the orders of dismissal dated 30.03.2009 passed by the DRAT for non-compliar.ee of its order dated 27.02.2009 are hereby set-aside. Consequently, the decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in OA 786/99 is set-aside. The Debt Recovery Tribun...
Javaregowda @ Rajegowda Vs. B.S.Nagamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filed O.S i\o. 187/2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,), Arkaigud, against the petitioners for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed written statement, wherein they have stated that, they have nothing to do with the suit schedule property. However, it was maintained that, the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property and that, one Ningaraju has purchased the same from Dyavamma and others. Along with the suit, I.A No.2 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 Si 2 CPC to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The trial court upon consideration of the record has allowed I.A No.2 by its order dated 23.01.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners fiied Misc.Appeal No.34/2008. The appeal having been considered, the appellate court has passed the judgment dated 02.01.2010, whereunder it has dism...
Shri E. Showkath Ali Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.C. No.3136/98 dated 13/6/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore and also for direction to 1st respondent to pay compensation awarded by the Court below.2. Brief facts leading to Uois appeal are under: Initially one E. Showkath Ali son of Abdul Wahid filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation for the injuries said to have suffered by him in a motor accident that took place on 30/7/1998 on N.H. 4 near Madhavavara Gudda Zilla due to the rash and negligent driving of Mini lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-06-9866.3. The fact that the said E. Showkath Ali was inmate in Mini lorry which belonged to 2nd respondent and insured with Is' respondent at the relevant lime of accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident he suffered severe injuries. Immediately thereafter he was shifted to Raghavendra Nursing Home for treatment of injuries to ve...
Shri. Veeranjaneyalu, S/O. Shri. Kotaiah. Vs. Shri. Sanjeevappa @ Sanj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard.3. For the sake of convenience parties arc referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 07-09-2006, when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in TVS XL bearing registration No.KA-05-R-9665 which was ridden by Sri. Veeranjaneyalu. near Fine Component and Tools Private Ltd. on Bommasandra Jigani Ring road, driver of lorry bearing registration No. KA-20-2064 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their moped. As a result the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore, seeking compensation of 7.50,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of 1.20.842/-with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of co...
Seetharama Bhandarv. Vs. Smt. Parameshwari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court. The suit was for bare injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that the property described in "A" schedule belongs to the plaintiff and it was her absolute property inherited from her father under a Will whereby "A" schedule property was bequeathed in favour of his daughter Kaveri and "B" schedule property was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1986. The plaintiff succeeded to "A" schedule property. It is claimed that "A" schedule property is Kadim Warga land and contains paddy fields, coconut trees and areca garden. The property shown in "B" schedule is government land situated adjacent to the plaint "A" schedule property and forms kumki to "A" schedule property. The plaint "B" .schedule property provides green manure for better cultivation of 'A" schedule property. The plaintiff claims to have planted cashew in plaint "B" sched...
A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has called into question, the endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-E) intimating the petitioner that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and that therefore the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike (for short 'the B.B.M.P') has resolved to refund the allotment consideration with 18% interest thereon. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to the B.B.M.P to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' to him n the land at Sy.Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valagerahalli.2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kengeri Town Municipal Council (for short 'the T.M.C) issued the Notification, dated 20.02.1985 calling for the applications from the desirous parties for the allotment of sites. The petitioner submitted the application on 05.02.1986 for allotment of the site measuring 30' X 40'. He had paid 1,500/- towards EMD at the time of submitting the application. Originally the allotment consideration was 15,000/-; later it was raised to 25,000/-. The petit...
Sri a N Shastri Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner in the above petition has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the II Addl. C.M.M.. Bangalore in PCR No. 705/2007 (Cr. No. 20/2007) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said order.2. The 2nd respondent is not represented even though several opportunities are given. Hence I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent.3. By the impugned order dated 28.12.2006 learned P Addl. CMM. Bangalore registered the private complaint filed by the 2"(l respondent against the petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and referred the same to the first respondent police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.4. In Para 3 of the complaint, the complainant alleges that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing site No.56 carved out of Sy.No.71 of Kathriguppe Village Uttarahalli Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk, herein after referred to as site having purchased under register...
Smt Rajeev T.S. Vs. M/S.V.Proof Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is filed by the complainant assailing the order of the trial Court, i.e., 16th ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No. 19968/2008 in dismissing the complaint.2. According to the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque towards legally recoverable debt i.e, towards goods supplied. The complainant has initiated proceedings for dishonor of cheque for Rs, 1,35,900/-w herein the cheque was dishonored for 'insufficient funder'.3. After issuance of legal notice, complaint came to be filed. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, he has not initiated any proceedings for the dishonor of cheque for Rs.2,35,000/-. However, in that regard also, there was an instruction to 'stop payment' by the drawer. The trial Court noticing that there is no document produced indicating the amount issued and there is no cause of action, dismissed the complaint, also on the ground that the notice is also not served on the respondent.Heard.5. So for as the amount which is due by the acc...
Smt.Meenakshi. W/O. N.Nagesh Vs. Sri Rahamathulla Khan, S/O Sri.ismail ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the appellant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 28/01/2005 passed in MVC No. 4407/2004 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-9) (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 1,44,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of 6,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant claims to be aged about 34 years, hale and healthy, working as Helper in M/s Srinidhi Apparels and drawing the salary of ?4,000/- per month. She has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 10.30 a.m., on 17.5.2004 when the appellant was goin...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »