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 Nagesh Rao Vs. M/S. Priyanka Products and the Managing Director K. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 20.08..2010 passed by the Prl. Judge, Small Causes & Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, in R.A.No.69/2003, whereby and where under the applications filed by the 1st respondent herein under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adduction of additional evidence was allowed.2. The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.245/1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Mysore, against the respondents 2 & '5 and the petitioner/defendants for declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of allotment of an industrial shed bearing No.C-182 made by the KS5IDC in favour of the petitioner. The suit was contested by the 2nd & 3rd defendants by filing written statement. Considering the material pleadings, the trial court raised in all 10 issues on different dates. For the plaintiff, PWs 1 & 2 deposed and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19 was marked. For the defendants, 3, d defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-ll were marked. Considering th...
Sri Sundare Gowda S/O Boraiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. Sri T 3 Ainar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has filed a memo reading as under:It is submitted that the Petitioners are Iwsband and wife who are the joint owners of various extent of lands situated Sy.No. 113 and Sy.No. 114 in Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner of Sy.No. 114 and Petitioner is the absolute owner of Sy.No. 112, both situated in Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk. The above mentioned lands along with various other lands were notified by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of a residential layout called "Nadapraphu Kempe Gowda Layout".The Petitioner No.2 Le. Sri Sundare Gowda craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw his petition seeking liberty to file a separate Writ Petition on the same cause of action. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the 2nd Petitioner to withdraw his Petition with liberty to file fresh ...
M/ S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shivanna, and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 16/9/ 2008 passed in MVC No.5449/2007 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge Member and MACT, SCCH-14, Bangalore.2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,85,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.3. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Comports submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the negligence en the part of the rider of the offending vehicle and the rider of the lorry was charge sheeted as per Ex.P5, As per Ex.PS, the vehicle that, were involved in the accident were two motor cycles and no lorry was involved. Secondly, the charge sheet was filed both against the rider of the bike and also the rider of tiles offending vehicle. Hence, the reasoning of the Tribunal on this issue m not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.4. It is further submitted that, the Tribunal...
R.Jagadish. S/O. T.Ramachandra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 9th February 2005. Passed in M.V.C.No.2029/2002, by the IV Additional Judge. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes. Bangalore (SCCH-6). (For short. Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 98,111/-awarded in his favour as against his claim for 12.60,000/-. is inadequate.2. The appellant claims to be aged about 34 years and an auto rickshaw driver, by profession, earning a sum of 4.500/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 0:15 hours, on 14-12-2001, when the appellant, being the driver was driving his auto rickshaw, near BEL Traffic signal, Gokul, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of Lorry bearing No.HR-38/E-8772 drove the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto rickshaw. Due to the impact, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries and was immedia...
Sri P Santhosh Kumar Vs. Smt.M Vam, D/O.Late Muniyan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This Writ Appeal is by the husband challenging the order of interim maintenance of Rs 4,000/ awarded to the wife in a petition filed by him for divorce. The material on record discloses that he was working as driver in HAL and drawing monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-The case of the wife is that he was also working in a private enterprise after office hours, in all, he was earning monthly a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, she sought interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for herself and child.2. The appellant disputes the paternity of the child. It is unfortunate that in view of the said submission, the Family Court has not awarded maintenance to the child. However, on the aforesaid admitted fact, as the wife has to live in a city like Bangalore, a minimum sum Rs.4,000/- is required to maintain herself. The Trial Court has awarded the said amount as interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred the writ petition. Learned Single Judge, on considering the order of the Famil...
The State of Karnataka Vs. M Shivabasanna,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. The State has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'KAT for short) upholding the claim of the applicant and directing the grant of Time Bound Advancement increment in accordance with the Rules within ninety days.2. The applicant-respondent was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise on 29.12.1985. On completion of ten years of service in the said post, he was eligible for a Time Bound Advancement as per the Government Order, which was denied to him on the ground that the ten year period is to be reckoned from 25.01.1992. The deemed date of eligibility in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Excise. Aggrieved by the same he approached the Tribunal.3. The KAT held that the applicant's claim to Time Bound Advancement cannot be denied on the ground that his date of eligibility for promotion has been differently fixed; the date of eligibility for promotion has nothing t...
T K Rajgopal Nanjappa S/O Late Ramakrishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Fast Track Court II, Bangalore City in SC 336/1999 on 18.12.2003 convicting accused 1 to 9 and sentencing them for the offences punishable under Ss.143, 144, 148, 506 B, 307 IPC to undergo imprisonment and also imposing fine.2. According 10 the prosecution, the Vidyaranyapura Police filed charge sheet against thirteen accused before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences under S.143, 144, 148, 506 B, 307, 114 r/w S.149. IPC. As per the evidence on record, on 23.8.1997, in connection with the spot inspection, the Deputy Commissioner had visited land in Sy.No.77 of Tindlu Village which according to PW 2 the injured, was in his cultivation and occupation pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights. It appears, as per the defense version, against the order of the Land Tribunal, there was also a stay order. The said land is an inam land of Anjancya Devaru of Tindlu Village of which the accused...
K. G. Puttarangaswamy Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused no. 1 in Crime No. 14/2010 registered by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police. Mysore for offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) (ii) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has sought for Anticipatory Bail.2. The petitioner (Sub Registrar of Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore) is alleged to have demanded and received the bribe amount from the first informant as a motive or reward to register a document of sale in favour of the first informant.3. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri.Rajendra Reddy - learned Counsel for respondent-Lokayukta.4. The trap mahazar discloses that the bribe amount (tainted currency notes) has to be recovered from the possession of accused No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 1,200/- was recovered from accused No.2 who is said to be a private agent operating in the office of the Sub-registrar, MUDA, and Mysore. The petitioner was neither apprehended in his office nor did he run away from his office. T...
Ramesh Koti Vs. Upendra Nayak and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard, the appeal is remitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facte of the case: On 24.07.2005, when the claimant was travelling in a Maruthi Omni Car bearing registration NO.KA-20-A-5172 along with his employer from Hebri towards Karkala side, near Durga High School Junction at Kilkkundoor village, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he Sled a claim petition before MACT, Karkala seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.39,364/- with interest at 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and humility...
Sri S.A.Nagendra Vs. Sri K.Ramkumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal by defendant No.3 is directed against an interlocutor order dared 18.02.2008 passed by the trial Court namely, the Court of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (C.C.H.No.8). in the suit in O.S.No.3635/2007. By the impugned order, the trial Court has restrained the appellant and respondent Nos.2 & 3 from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit schedule property or from dispossessing the plaintiff there from till the disposal of the suit.2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after arguing the matter for some time, submits that the appeal may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff would fully co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.3. Having regard to the facts of the ease, i accept ...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »