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. Reverend Ezekiel Georg, Vs. Vijaykumar Bansal, and the Oriental In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.4839/2008 dated 24.9.2009 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal and the respondents were the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute as to she occurrence of the accident and the liability of the second respondent - Insurance Company to pay compensation. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The claimant was aged 72 years at the time of the accident. The Doctor has opined that claimant has to be operated for removal of the implants and bone grafting has to be done. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of 5000/- towards loss of amenities. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, it is just and proper to award an additional sum...
Sri V.Y.Katwa S/O Sri Yellusa Vs. the Karnataka Silk Industries Corpor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral)1. Through the instant writ appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No.44266/2004. The filing of the instant writ, appeal is delayed by 426 days. The only explanation tendered by the applicant/appellant in the application for condonation of delay is, that the appellant's employer had, in the first instance, preferred a writ appeal, and having failed therein, had approached the Supreme Court to assail the order dated 18.12.2008 (referred to hereinabove). This, in our view, does not constitute any valid justification for the applicant/appellant for not assailing the order dated 18.12.2008 passed, while disposing of Writ Petition No.44266/2004.2. Be that as it may. It is the case set up by the applicant/appellant in the application for condonation of delay, that the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the appellant's emplo...
Smt Siddagangamma B M. D/O Muniyappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner's grievance is that, selection of the 3rd respondent herein as Supervisor of the library at Bidare Grama Panehayath. Gubbi Taluk, is illegal and not sustainable in law because the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe community and secondly the petitioner has sufficient experience in education activities having worked under various educational programmed of the Government like Sampoorna Saksharatha Andolana conducted under the caption of Akshara Kalpavruksha in Tumkur District and the third ground put forward is that the 3rd respondent who has been selected is not a permanent resident of the village Bidare. It is on these grounds, the petitioner seeks quashing of the selection of 3rd respondent to the post of Supervisor of the library opened at Bidare Grama Panchayath, Gubbi Taiuk. Annexure-G is the order that is sought to be quashed in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the above said grounds, sought for quashing of the impugned order...
Sri Thimmegowda, S/O Late Ramaiah Vs. Sri Muniyappa, S/O Late Karmmaia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the court below rejecting the request for amendment of the plaint.2. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs sought to incorporate certain pleadings and also an additional relief in the prayer column to the effect that the sale deed executed by one Chennappa in favour of Anjinappa on 14.10.1959 and also the sale deed executed by Anjinappa in favour of Krishnappa on 10.07.1967 and as also the subsequent sale made by Krishnappa in favour of Muniyappa in the year 1967 etc. be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. This application was filed in the month of July 2003 while the suit is of the year 2005.3. The plaintiff had contended in the application that he came to know about the registered sale deeds only after the written statement was filed by the defendants setting up those sale deeds. He further contended that if the amendment were to be allowed, it will not change the nature of the su...
BachannA. Vs. Smt. NeelammA. and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2007 made in O S No.534/1999 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil Judge. Bangalore City (CCH-16).2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, 'the plaintiff and 'defendant Nos.2 and 3'. Respectively.3. 'the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:On 21.1.1999, the respondent No.l/plaintiff filed a suit against the present appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property-site bearing old No.86/17 new No. 17, situated at II B' Cross Road. Jooganahalli Gramatana, Rajajinagar. Bangalore-10, and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The case of the plainti...
M.C.Siddegowda, S/O.Late.Channegowda Vs. M. Govindegowda, S/O.Hanumego ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of acquittal of the respondent - accused passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.67/2006 dated 17-08-2007.2. The respondent - accused is said to have availed a loan of Rs. 1.75,000/- from the complainant on 12-01-2004 for his legal necessities and agreed to repay the same within three months. Towards the discharge of liability, ht issued a cheque dated 02-04-2004 for Rs. 1,75,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mandya in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'Funds insufficient.' After issuing legal notice, a complaint came to be filed. The Trial Court after enquiry, held that the complainant has established the fact of issue of cheque, its dishonour for insufficient funds, issue of legal notice in time and the failure on the part of the accused to pay the amount within stipulated period, beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the accused to undergo s...
State of Karnataka Vs. M.N.Umesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.5.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur in S.C.No.39/2003, acquitting the respondents - accused of the charge leveled against them for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 31.7.2002 at. About 10.30 p.m. while PW. 1-K.N.Ganesh, his wife PW.2-Usha and his friends PW.3-Deviprasad, PW.4-Gurudas, CW.5-Ajith and his mother CW.6-Shankai amma were travelling in a Maruthi Van bearing registration No.KA.21-M-2320 towards Kunigal on Yediyur-Tiptur Road, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA.09-M-34 which was coming from behind overtook the Maruthi Van and stopped across the Maruthi Van. Thereafter the inmates of the Tata Sumo got down from the vehicle holding longs and by threatening the inmates of the Maruthi Van, i.e., the complainant and others by showing longs, they took away the suit case containing clothes, gold ...
Manager the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt Kamalamma W/O Raje Go ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is Sled by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award in MVC ,461/2008 dated 07,02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Arakalgud.2. The grounds takes by the learned Counsel for appellant is that the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding the compensation under the head loss of dependency and loss of estate. According to the appellant Counsel, deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. The claimants are parents, brother and sister of the deceased. Hence, 50% towards personal expenses has to be deducted and not 1/ 3rd. As per Sarala Vanna's case wherein the Apex Court has held that if the dependants are the widow mother or married sister or daughter then 1/3" has to be deducted but in other cases 50%. In the instant case claimants 1 and 2 are the parents, claimant No.3 is the elder sister and claimant No.4 is brother of the deceased, they are not dependants on the income of the deceased. Hence, the learned counsel...
M.Thimmaraju S/O Muninanjappa and ors Vs. M.Kupendra S/O Late Muniyapp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 20th March 2004 in O.S.Nos.971/1992 and 1176/1992 on the file of V Addl.City Civil Judge. Bangalore City.2. Deceased appellant was the plaintiff in O S.No.971 /1992 and defendant in O.S.No. 1176/1992. Plaintiff in O.S.No.l 176/1992 is the defendant in O.S.No.971/1992.3. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their ranking in O.S.No.971 /1992.4. Plaintiff sought for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and agents from interfering with suit schedule property bearing Khaneshumari No.32 measuring 45' x 30' i.e.. 45' East West and 30' North South situated at Agara village, Begur Hobli. Bangalore South aluk. Plaintiffs mother purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 3.4.1963 from one Kenchappa and hia minor sons. After the death of his mother, became the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant...
N Sreedhara Rao, Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co Perative Societies, Sahaka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. In this v.Tit petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 to pass an order directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to repay or restore money with interest under Section 26 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, to direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner as Secretary of the Samaj to direct the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to initiate action against respondent No. 1 - the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and to direct payment of compensation of .50,000/- plus to the petitioner.2. If the petitioner is not happy with the order passed by the first respondent as per Annexure 'A', then he has to question the same in accordance with law before appropriate forum. If petitioner is having any grievance against respondent No.1, then he is at liberty to give a written representation/petition to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies her appropriate action. In so far as it relates to directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to repay or re...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »