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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sri Gangaboraiah S/O Sri Ganganna a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the insurer is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 14.02.2007 passed in MVC No.4055/2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Prl. MACT. Metropolitan area. Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short).2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle claiming compensation. They claimed that on account of the untimely death of the deceased, who was aged about 21 years as on the date of death and the sole bread winner in the family, their security, future hopes and aspirations have been jeopardised.3. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, has awarded compensation of ^4,59,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, on...
Sri Anjanappa Ballagare S/O Late Honnappa Gangappa Vs. Sri Abdul Ban N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :hereunder;1. The complainant/petit inner has approached this Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on account of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 18.08.2009, while disposing of WP No.5755/2004. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court on 18.08 2009 is being extracted The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post held by him as on 12.08.2003 and he would be entitled to 30% of the backwards or arrears of salary upto the date of such reinstatement. He would further be entitled to count this period for his service benefits.The respondents are at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry on the alleged charges brought against the petitioner, if it is so warranted."2. It is not a matter of dispute, that complainant/petitioner has been reinstated into service, consequent upon passing of the order dated 18.08.2009. It is also not a matter of dispute that arrears of salary have been paid to t...
Hanumakka, W/Ok.C. Maraiah, Vs. M.D. Prafahu Devaraj and Ths New India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.C. 6052/2003 on the file of MACT, Bangalore.2. The felt that the claimant was inmate of Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 92 N 1336 and the said vehicle met with an accident at early hours of morning on 9-9-3003 at 4 a.m. on N.H. 7 near BagepalH, Madarasa School, BagepalH Taluk, Kolar District is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo belonging to 1* respondent and insured with 2nd respondent.3. In a claim petition filed by the injured, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court below awarded compensation in a sum of RB .84,331/ - as under:1. Pain and agony Rs.20,000/ -2. Medical expenses Rs.20,331/-3. Conveyance & nourishment etc. Re. 4.000/-4. Future medical expenses Rs. 5,000/-5. Loss of earning during laid up period Rs. 10,000/ -6. Disability Rs.10,000/-7. Loss Life Amenities Rs.15,000/-TOTAL Rs.84...
Smt. Unnamalai. W/O. Armugam. Vs. Puttaraju B J, S/O. Javaramaiah B.
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 are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 27-12-06. when the claimant was crossing the road in front of Prasad Granite. Magadi Main road, the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-02-EJ-2003 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the MACT. Bangalore, seeking compensation of 6.00.000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of 80,960/-with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the owner of the offending vehicle, in the absence of insurance, th...
Smt. Kempamma and ors Vs. Sri. M.Ananda S/O. Muniswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 5lh May 2005, passed in M.V.C.No. 135/2001. by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn). Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur. (For short, Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 3,05,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for 20.00 Lakhs, is inadequate.2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants - ppellant No.l is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the children and appellant No.4 is the mother of the deceased Late Sri. Shivamallaiah. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 8:00 A.M, on 13-05-2001, the deceased Shivamallaiah met with an accident, while he along with others was travelling in Maxi Cab bearing KA-11/1323, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Lorry. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to NIMHANS ...
The Managing Director, Ksrtc Vs. Sri K.V. Shivareddy,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.8971/2007 dated 9.10.2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore.2. The appellants in MFA No.828/2010 are the claimants and the respondent-Corporation is the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants have tiled this appeal contending that the award of compensation is on a lower side.3. The Corporation has filed an appeal in MFA No. 163/2010 contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the Corporation for payment of compensation.4. 1 has heard the learned Counsel for the parties.5. Learned Counsel for the parties has made available '.he-copies of the evidence and the documents marked by the parties before the Tribunal.6. The deceased was the wife of the first claimant and mother of claimant Nos.2 to 4. She was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a tota...
Mr.Ramachandra and ors Vs. M/S.Sri,bhavani theater and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate vbo differences between the petitioner and the respondents,2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondents entered into. Twittered Partnership Deed on 01.07.2002 as per Annexure-A. Clause 18 of Partnership Deed reads as under: "18. AUSEME That any dispute or difference which may arise between the parties or their representatives with regard to the interpretation of this deed or their rights and liabilities or any part thereof or respecting die accounts profits or losses of the business or any other matter relating to partnership business, either during or after partnership shall be referred to Arbitration under Indian Partnership Act, 1940, then in force at the time of dispute".3. On 18.03.2010, petitioner got issued a notice as per Annexure-D calling upon the respondents to furnish the books of accounts and to give profits, failing which 10 invoke arbitration clause the respon...
Abdul Rehman and Smt.Khursheedunnisa Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner in Crl.P 5121/2010 is the father in law of the deceased. He is seeking bail. Petitioners in Crl.P 5122/2010 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. They are seeking anticipatory bail.The first accused is the husband of deceased.2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have been taken through the investigation records, which would reveal that the marriage of the first accused with the deceased Sal ma Kouser was performed on 16.7.2007. Thereafter, she was living in the house of petitioners. That, on 31.7.2010 she committed suicide by hanging in the house of petitioners. The father of deceased lodged first information against the first accused alleging that first accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. Therefore, she committed suicide. Petitioners were implicated on the basis statements of neighbourers of petitioner which would reveal that these petitioners were harassing the deceas...
KrishnappA. M and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are impugning the notification dated 03.08.2009 vide Annexure - C, wherein the second respondent herein has appointed a committee of nine members as Managing Committee to Lakshmi Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Urukere, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk who are respondent nos. 6 to 13 in this Writ Petition.2. The said appointment is made by the third respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).3. Admittedly, the said Act is under challenge in a proceeding pending before the Apex Court, wherein by virtue of an interim order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Application No.5924/2008 passed on 31.07.2009 Section 25 of the Act is not in force.4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the impugned order appointing respondent nos.6 to 14 as members of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid temple is passed vide Annexure - C date ...
Prasanna Kumar.H.S Vs. State by Mahila Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No. 126/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 494 I.P.C., and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He is seeking Anticipatory Bail.2. Heard Sri.Rajendra S.Ankalkoti - learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State. I have been taken through the first information report and other investigation documents which would reveal that the petitioner had married the first informant namely Prabhavathi on 18.6.2006. In connection with the said marriage, the petitioner had demanded and received a sum of Rs.1 Lakh and 100 gms of gold as dowry. After the marriage, the petitioner started harassing his wife to bring dowry and therefore, she left the company of the petitioner and started living in the house of her parents. Thereafter, she secured job of lecturer in Indira Gandhi First Grade College, Sirsi. The petitioner approached the first...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »