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. Cheluvaiah Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment, and award dated 17th January 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.3984/2003, by the XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-14), (for short. Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 750,000/-awarded in his favour as against his claim for 705.00 lakhs, is inadequate.2. The appellant claims to be aged about 40 years, working as Agricultural Coolie, earning a sum of 75,000/- per month. He was hale and health-/ prior to the date of accident. That at about 9:30 P.M., on 03-03-2003, when he was travelling in Tractor - Trailer bearing No.KA-05/ T-2657 - KA-05/T-2658 from Kadushivanahalli via Guligenahslli to Kanakapura Rice Mill, near Kodihalli, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor- trailer and on account of the same, he sustained severe injuries like fracture of right hand knee and...
M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. A.S. Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. Even though both these appeals are listed for admission, with consent, appeals are taken up for final disposal.2. R.F.A.NO 1335/2007 is by the defendant. We notice that notice has not been served. We direct Mr. R. Rajgopalan, learned counsel to accept notice for respondents. Service is complete.3. R.F.A.No. 1335/2007 is filed by the defendant and R.F.A.No. 1488/2007 is filed by the plaintiffs.4. The defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of amount of 6.60.942/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 15.3.2001 till the date of realization. Insofar as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs is concerned they are really aggrieved by the f) later part of the judgment wherein the Court has declined to grant costs.5. During the course of judgment, parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court6. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of. 8,04.484/- with future interest at 15% on th...
Smt. Akthari Banu and Savithramma and ors Vs. Mysore Urban Development ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. W.P.Nos.34138-343 39/10 and W.P.Nos.34223-34230/10 and W.P.No.34404/3 0 are clubbed., heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as they involve the same set of facts.2. Sri X.M. Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 34138-34139/10 and W.P.Nos. 34223-34230/10 submits that the petitioners are the owners of the lands in question. He further submits that their ownership is recognized by the Mysore City Corporation. The petitioners have been paying the property tax to the said local body. The petitioners could not have the transaction registered because of the prohibition prevailing in the matter of registering the revenue lands. He further submits that the petitioners have put up the construction. They have also made the necessary application under the Akrama-Sakrama Scheme.3. Sri Joseph emphatically submits that the petitioners' properties in question are not at al' acquired by the Government or the Mysore Urban Development Authority ( MU...
Raja, S/O Annegowda and ors Vs. the State Through Srirangapatna Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. The Petitioners in Crl.P.4854/2010 are the daughters-in-law of victim by name Lakshmamma. The Petitioners in Crl.P 5219/10 are the son and grandson of victim Lakshmamma. They have sought for Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 117/10 registered for the offences punishable under Sec 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., on the allegation that the victim Lakshmamma aged about 80 years had suffered injuries and she was bedridden. She was in care and custody of petitioners. As the victim was suffering from gangrene, petitioners felt that she may not recover and they were fed up with her condition and lost their patience to treat her.2. On 8.3.2010, at about 9.10 a.m., the petitioners on the guise of taking her to Hunsur Hospital, took her in a Car. At about 1.15 p.m., they stopped the care near virija channel. They tied her with gunny bag and bed sheet and pushed her into the channel. The victim raised hue and cry, she was rescued by one Mahadev, who was working in a nearby field. Thereafter, she lodged t...
Mr. Vasudev Rao Vs. Mrs. Lalitha Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court. The suit was for ejectment. The suit having been decreed the same was carried in appeal and was affirmed by the lower appellate Court Hence, the present appeal.2. The present appeal is filed on the following purported substantial questions of law:-"(a)Whether the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the suit for eviction and possession is maintainable against the defendant alone, in the absence of the children of the defendant, since admittedly the alleged tenancy rights were inherited by the defendant No. 1(a) and her children on the dearii of defendant Vasudeva Rao?(b)Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in throw.1 ng the burden of proof on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff is not the owner and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in the absence of any evidence in this regard produced by the plaintiff?(c)Whether the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the plaintif...
T.Thipperudraswamy. Vs. Nagaraj,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff having lost his suit for mandatory injunction and for permanent prohibitory injunction following the dismissal of the suit filed by him and the lower appellate court concurring with the trial court by dismissing his appeal. The concurrent findings therefore form the backdrop for filing this second appeal.2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendant herein to remove the lavatory pipe affixed tot -the suit property and also to remove the unauthorized construction put up towards the west of the plaintiffs house and to prevent the respondent- defendant by an order of prohibitory injunction from obstruction the plaintiff in any manner. The said relief of the plaintiff was based on the footing that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring east-west 25 feet and north-south 42 feet and it was the case of the plaintiff that he had put u...
State by Lokayuktha Police Vs. Chikka Nanjundaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The respondent was tried and acquitted for offences under sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(ii), punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, the Lokayukta Police has filed this appeal.2. I have heard Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/Lokayukta Police and Sri M.S.Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for respondent/accused.3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:-The father of first informant (PWl-M.S.Suresh) was working as a group-D employee in Sericulture Department. On 17.04.1997. the father of PW1 died while in service. Therefore, the mother of PW1 had submitted an application to the Tahsildar of Malavalli Taluk for grant of Survival Certificate to get pensionary benefits. At the relevant time the respondent/accused was working as Revenue Inspector Halagur.On 25.06.1997 and several days before. PW1 had requested accused to forward necessary report to the Tahsildar. In that connection, accused h...
DeveerammA. W/O. Varadappa Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 25th August 2004, passed in M.V.C.No.261/1999, by the Prl. Civil Judge for On) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Ill. Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (for short. Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 1.44.800/- awarded in favour of the claimant as against her claim for 05.00 Lakhs, is inadequate.2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant appellant herein is the mother of the deceased Late Sri. Venugopal. She filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Contending that at about 1:30 P.M. on 04-07-1999, the deceased Venugopal met with an accident while he was travelling in a BM7C bus bearing No.KA-28/F-354 near Shanimahatma temple, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus bearing No.MYK/6403. As a result of the same, the deceased sustained severe injuries and was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and lat...
The Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri. Raghavendra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Puttur.2. The ground taken up by the appellant is that an error appellant to pay the compensation and recover thereafter, for which the Tribunal had no power. Secondly, it is submitted that once finding has come in favour of the appellant consequentially the order should be in its favor. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submits to allow this appeal and to set aside the order on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error,2. As per Ex. R-1, the policy was issued for a private car under package policy. In order to avail the benefit of the policy the claimants should comply the terms and conditions of the insurance and not to violate the term and conditions. In the instant case, a fare paid passengers were allowed to travel in a private car. FW-1 who has been examined has admitted in his cross-examination that he was going along with the petitio...
H R Yathish S/O. H C Ramaiah Vs. H C Narayana Murthy
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 admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.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 12-5-95, when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-1 l-E-8884 from Mandya to Hanakere on Mysore - Bangalore road, near Mallaiahnadoddi village, the rider of the motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Mandya, and seeking compensation of 7.3,95.000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of 7.75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation a...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »