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.
State of Karnataka Vs. Thimmama
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The State is in appeal before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.11 2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Ill, Bangalore in S.C.No. 144/2003, acquitting the respondent - accused of the charge leveled against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2004 at about 12 noon, the respondent - accused committed rape on the victim girl aged about two years 5 months, the daughter of PW. 1-Smt.Tilakavathi, inside Om Shakti Provision Stores situated at 9th Main, Saibabanagar Main Road, Srirampura. The respondent - accused pleaded not guilty for the charge leveled against him. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 18.3. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal acquitted the accused holding that the prosecutio...
Vinutha D/0 Shivanna Vs. Rudraradhya S/O Visewaradhay
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal is by the clement for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard.3. For the salts of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facts of the case: On 30/10/2006, when the claimant was proceeding on her bicycle on the extreme end of the left Bide of Sira-Bukkapatna road, near Veerabhadraswaizry Talkies, a bus bearing registration No. KA-06-C-7766 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed or against her. As a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, she filed a claim petition before time MACT, Tumkur, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00.000/-The Tribunal awarded her a compensation of Rs.27,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that, arises for my consideration in the appeal is:"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just an...
Sameer Aggarwal S/O. J.J. Aggarwal Vs. Veena JaIn W/O. Jitendra Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10018/ 98 on the file of the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore,2. For convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking in the Trial Court,3. Plaintiff sought for decree directing the defendant to deliver the suit schedule property as per the lease deed dated 28 04.1997 and to refund the advance amount paid by the plaintiff as the same is contrary to Section 18 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and sought for permanent injunction against inducting new tenants and compensation for damages.4. Plaintiff claims that he was in search of the premise, be came in contact with one real estate M/s. Akash Real Estate Agency who introduced the defendant as the owner of the premises of Apartment No.l, LIC Building situated at 2nd floor in 1st block, Jeevangriah Segament, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. The defendant agreed to let-out the premises on monthly rent of Rs.3,800/- and an advanc...
indiranagar Social Welfare Trust. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. This is the fourth round of litigation between the parties over the issue of cancellation of civic amenity site measuring 65' x 365' situate at HAL II Stage, which was allotted to the petitioner-Trust on lease-sum-sale basis for 30 years and the cancellation of the allotment has prompted the petitioner to approach this court repeatedly and the present petition is one such repetition praying for the very same relief of quashing the impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 7.4.2010.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, briefly stated, are that the aforementioned C.A. site was allotted in favour of petitioner Indiranagar Social Welfare Trust on 17.3.1976 and the purpose for which the lease was granted was to start construction of educational institutes, cottage industries, specific small scale industries, consumer stores and such other activities which will directly or indirectly benefit the women, children and the underprivileged classes. The lease- cum-sale deed was executed in favo...
Sri N. Sriram Reddy Vs. Chief Manager State Bank of India and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. In tins writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the public notification dated 13.10.2010 as per Annexure-E, for a writ of mandamus to implement the order dated 16.4.2010 in Crl.Misc. Application No.563/2010 as per Annexure-C and for a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to calculate the interest at 6% on the principle amount.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that they are not pressing prayer No.(a) in the writ petition. Accordingly, prayer No.(a) in the writ petition is hereby rejected.3. It is seen from 'die record that the order passed by the third ACMM, Judge in Crl, Misc. Appl. No.563/2010 was dated 16.4.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that even alter lapse of 7 months, respondents - Bank has not taken any steps to implement the order. No prejudice will be cause to the respondents - Bank if they are directed to take proper steps in accordance with law for implementation of the order indri. Misc. Appl....
M/S.Roopa Engineering Corporation Vs. Ms.Cauvery Neeravarinigama Ltd a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. Statement of objections is filed by respondents. The saint are taken on record.This petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for referring the matter to Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute which has arisen between the parties.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, the petitioner could not complete his work because of the fact that the respondents did not provide him 75% of the work site area comprising of a contiguous block as per clause 2(b) of the General conditions of Form P.W.G 65 and consequently, the petitioner should not be blamed. According to him, as per clause 2(b) of General Conditions of Form P.W.G 65. time shall be reckoned from the date of handing over to the contractor 75% of the work area of contiguous block. Since the said area is not provided by the respondents, he did not complete the work in time. However, the said fact is disputed by the respondents. Ultimately, the contract entered...
Mr.Mahadeva and ors Vs. Mr.M.A.Sadiq
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :1. The complainants/petitioners have approached this Court, so as to initiate action against the respondent, for disobeying the order passed by this Court on 12.07.2010, while disposing of WF Ncs. 18716-723/2009. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court on 12.07.2010 is being extracted hereunder;"For the reasons stated above, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to make payment to the petitioners as per the re-determined awards, as expeditiously as possible."2. Keeping in view the nature of the direction issued by this Court, we are of the view, that the complainants/petitioners have approached this Court in extreme haste, without allowing the concerned authorities appropriate time to comply with the direction issued by this Court.3. In view of the above, the instant contempt petition is hereby dismissed. Liberty is however granted to the complainants/petitioners to file a fresh petition. On the same cause of action, in case, after sufficie...
Mr. Kamarulla Khan Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corpor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal by the appellant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 22/07/2004 passed in MVC No. 1317/1999 on the file of the XIX Addl. SCJ and MACT. Bangalore, (SCCH-17) (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 71,61,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of 75.00,000/-, on account of the damages caused to the lorry/tanker bearing No.KA.04.9612 in the road traffic accident.3. The occurrence of the accident and the damages caused to the Lorry/tanker bearing Reg.No.KA.04.9612 are not in dispute. On account of the damages caused to the Lorry/tanker, the appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, along with the report of the Surveyor and other documents, including the bills. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in ...
Smt.Suvarnamma Vs. N. Basavaraj and anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This Cross-objection is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount in an appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No. 1569/2007. The MACT, Davangere in MVC No.65/2006 by the judgment and award dated 16.10.2006 has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,79,000/-.2. The contention of the cross-objector is that the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased.3. The appellant Insurance Company has taken a contention that the claimants are the passengers in a private vehicle which was covered by an Act Policy. As it is held by this Court and also Supreme Court, the inmates of the private car where the insurance policy is an Act Policy, they are not entitled for compensation from the insurance company. The policy is produced at Ex.Rl and the same is placed before me. I have gone through the policy and found that it is only an Act Policy and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner in the eventuality of an accident.4. The owner who i...
K.V. Shanthala Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal. MACT. at Bangalore in M V C No. 125/2007. The claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- along with 6% interest.2. It is the contention of the appellant that Rs.30,000/-which is awarded towards pain and suffering is inadequate. It is also contended that Rs. 15,000/- which is awarded under the head loss of amenities is also on the lower side. The tribunal has clubbed two heads medical and incidental charges and awarded only Rs.75,000/- out of which Rs.72,527/- is the expenditure towards medical expenses and therefore the amount awarded towards incidental charges is very less. It is further submitted that though the doctor has stated that the claimant has to incur further expenses for future medical treatment. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- under this head which needs to be enhanced suitably.3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the insurance c...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »