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. Sujatha Shetty and ors Vs. State of Karnataka Rep and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for a direction to refer the investigation of Crime No.97/2009 registered in Manipal Police station, Udupi District to CBI.2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the report from the Investigating Officer was called for by this Court to find out the stage of the investigation.3. The affidavit of one Mr.H.D.Kulkarni, Police Inspector of Manipal Police Station came to be filed before this Court on 5.10.2010. In the said affidavit, the Investigating Officer has submitted that he has made all sincere efforts during the course of investigation. Order sheet maintained by this Court dated 5.10.2010 reveals that the Investigating Officer has stated before this Court that he may need another three months to complete the investigation. The said submission was recorded by this Court in the order dated 5.1.0.2010.In view of the said submission made by the Investigating Officer before this Court, it is unnecessary for this court to keep this writ petition pen...
Narayan. Swamy Vs. Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order as per Annoxure "E" passed by the State refusing to grant parole.2. The peiitioner is detained in pursuance of a detention order under Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bool-Loggers. Drug Offenders. Gamblers. Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985. The said order has been confirmed by this Court and the matter is now pending before the Apex Court. In the meanwhile, he filed an application under Section 15 of the aforesaid Ac! seeking his temporary release on the ground that his mother is suffering from Oesophagael Malignancy (cancer). He has produced a medical certificate as per Annexure "C" in support of his case. His grievance is that his request has been rejected by the authorities without application of mind, the impugned order is not a speaking order. Therefore, he is before this Court seeking quashing of the said order and for an order releasing him temporarily...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sri. V.R. Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Sri. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the insurance challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 6766/2007 by MFA No 113W8/2008CMV) C/WMFANo. 113/2009 the MACT, Bangalore. The appellant has challenged the order on the ground that the income of the injured is excessively taken. In respect of income the claimant has not produced any piece of evidence. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has calculated his income at t. 7,000/- which is on higher side and it requires to be reduced. RTC extracts produced as Ex. F-9, in which it is not shown, what type of agricultural activities he was performing. As per Ex. P-9, it shows he was growing Ragi and for some years he did not do any cultivation and only to a smaller extent he was growing mulberry crops. That itself is not sufficient for the purpose of ascertaining his income. As per his own evidence he has stated that he was inpatient from 02.02.2007 to 13.02.2007 for a period of 11 days for which the Tribunal has awarded .28,000/-- which is again on hig...
Smt. C Suma W/O Sri Narayanappa Vs. the Commissioner Bangalorf and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. The petitioner has called into question, the second respondent's endorsement, dated 04.07.2006 (Annexure-F) refusing to transfer the khatha in respect of the property in question to the petitioner's name on account of the pendency of O.S. No. 1551/2004.2. Sri Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a party in O.S.No.1551/2004. He further submits that the petitioner's property is not the subject matter of the suit at all.3. Sri K.N.Putte Gowda, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not advisable for the B.B.M.P officials to determine the question of title and more so, when the suit is pending.4. The impugned endorsement is not reflective of the application of mind. It does not even say as to whether the petitioner's property and the suit property are the one and the same, there is absolutely no examination of the petitioner's HBH. claim and the tenability of the objections by Sri Manjunatha and Smt Papamma.5. I therefor...
Mallappa B Kale vs. the Hon'Ble Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. As far as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, the submission made is that they are only formal parties against whom no relief is sought.2- This matter is disposed of finally in view of the short point involved for consideration in as much as the petitioner being a member of scheduled cast requested the respondents 1 to 3 to consider him for promotion to the post of Under Secretary. A3 the said post is meant only for reserved category, only persons belonging to reserved category are eligible for being filled up to the said post and accordingly, petitioner gave several representations to the respondents and even approached this court by way of writ petition in W.P.No. 10692/2009 which was disposed of by giving opportunity to the petitioner to approach this court if need arises. However, in the meanwhile, the respondents-Government did grant permit ion to the pet...
K Santosh Kumar JaIn Vs. B Ramanjulu Naidu S/O Sri.B.Ramaswamy Naidu a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.8.2010 on I.A.IV in O.S.6005/08 on the file of Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), C.P.C.1. The petition is posted for admission.2. Heard.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence assails the impugned order and in this regard has made reference to the following factual position:a) Respondent-B.Ramairjulu Naidu filed O.S.6005/08 against the petitioner who was arrayed as 3rd defendant seeking a decree to cancel the deed of sale dated 1.9.2001 and for a decree of permanent injunction against the 3rd defendant from alienating 'B' schedule property and for such other reliefs as the court may deem fit.b) Petitioner (3rd defendant) entered appearance and filed an application invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the basis that the principal prayer in the suit to cancel the sale deed dated 1.9.2001 is bar...
The Branch Manager National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Kemparagaiah and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. These appeals filed by the insurance company,2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not dismissing the petition filed by the claimant and further net holding that the insurance is not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the injured were the passengers in a goods vehicle. Accordingly company cannot be indemnity the owner. The reasons of the tribunal holding that the insurance is liable to compensation is again an error in law and further the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence filed on MFA No. 5041 C/W 5039, 5040 OF 20KJ behalf of Respondent No.l. The other appeals are also filed raising similar grounds.3. I have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and found that Tribunal should have considered all these aspects and further the evidence adduced on behalf of RW-1 should have been taken into consideration.4. The appellant has preferred these appeals challenging the order passed in MVC NNo.49/04, 47/0...
Venkatappa, S/O Chikkavenkataramappa, Vs. the Manager, M/S Oriental In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This is claimant's appeal against the Judgment and award in MVC No. 2977/2006 dated 26-02-2007 on the file of the MACT and Court of Small Causes judge, Bangalore, (SCCH-6), seeking enhancement.2. Heard both sides,3. The contextual facts are:The appellant sought compensation regarding injuries suffered by him in motor vehicle accident on 23-04-2006 involving passenger bus under the name called Balaji bearing registration No. KA-06 A-2466 near Doddaballapura. He alleged that the accident was due to negligent driving of the bus driver, consequent to which when they reached ThipDu Late road, he lost control and the bus traversed from the road and capsized in the valley. Due to the impact he suffered injuries to right foot frontal region and other parts of the body. He was shifted to local hospital where treatment could not save his leg. Because of crush injuries to right leg, right leg was amputated below knee. Consequent to such amputation, which was necessary to save his life, he has ...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H.Ramachandraiah Major
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.12.2006 passed in MVC No.971/2005 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Addl. MACT. Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, has awarded compensation of 5,00,000/- with interest @ 0% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of ?5,00,00,000/- on account of the death of Sri.Iokesh in the road traffic accident. The insurer claiming that, the Tribunal without fixing the contributory negligence on the part, of the driver of the tractor trailer which was involved in the accident, felt necessitated to file the instant appeal praying to modify the impugned judgment and award.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The occurrence cf the accident and the resultant death on account of the grievous injuries sustained are not in dispute. The only grievance of the i...
Smt. Kousalyamnia, W/O Hanumanthappa, Vs. Yogesh, S/O Chandrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC N'o.229/2009 dated 3.11.2009 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V. Davanagere. 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. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. She has produced Ex.P6, the wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Davanagere. The said document has not been challenged by the respondents nor have they let in any evidence. The Tribunal has only awarded a sum of 2.500/- towards compensation, which is grossly inadequate. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evid...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »