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.
Mr.Madhusudhana Rao Vs. Sri. Narayana Swamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :1. Sri.T.Krishna, Advocate for Sri.Gowthamdev C.Ullal, Advocate for the complainant/petitioner. Sri.V.S.Hegde. learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy thereof, has been furnished to the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner on the basis of the notification bearing endorsement dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure-R.2) filed along with the counter affidavit states that the directions issued by this Court on 23.06.2010 while disposing of WP No. 16897/2010 have been fully complied with.3. The aforesaid factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner.4. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the instant contempt petition has been rendered in fructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of as having been ...
Shakunthala Vs. Lakshmamma and Ramesh and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court in a suit for partition and separate possession and the plaintiff had sought for 4/5TH share in the suit property, which was some in favour of defendant No.1, who had in turn constructed a house therein. The sale deed was of some antiquity. The suit so filed in respect of the said property had inexplicably excluded the other properties belonging to the family. At the trial, it was established that there was no challenge to the construction put up by the defendant No.1. It was also not disclosed as to why the plaintiff did not include the other properties, which were available to the family and it was also not established that the suit property was the joint family property by providing any material evidence. It Is in that background that the trial court found that there was no substance in the suit for partition and separate possession and accordingly had dismissed the suit, which has...
State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna H N
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This appeal filed under Section 373 (1)& (3) of Cr.P.C, by the State is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27,8,2004 passed by the Fast Track Court-II/ Mysore in S.C.No.243/2001, acquitting respondent/accused of the charge leveled against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief under:-Deceased Geetha-daughter of PW.7-Puttarajagowda and PW.2 6 Smt.Kamaiamma, was given in marriage to the accused and their marriage was solemnised on 15.3.2001. After the marriage, deceased started living with the accused in the matrimonial home at Horiyaia Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Charnaraj anagara District. Before the marriage the accused had demanded dowry and after negotiation he received dowry of 18,000/- in cash apart from other articles. He was not satisfied with the amount of 18,000/- and he was annoyed by the fact that the balance of 4,000/- had not been paid towards the dowry. Accused, after the marriage, came to know that the ...
Smt. Lakshmakka @ Jayaiakshmamma Vs. Khaleel Ahmed and anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC.No.828/2003 on the file of MACT, Sira.2. The fact that claimant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving; of Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-16/4230 belonging to 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that in the said accident she suffered fracture of neck of femur. Fracture to lower end of radius and fracture to styloid process of ulna, she was under hospitalization from 12.8.2003 to 13.9.2003 in Government Hospital, Sira and Government Hospital, Tumkur.3. Thereafter, in the claim petition filed by her she examined herself as PW. 1 and in support of her case she examined PW.2, Dr.B.Rajanna, who treated her, when she was inpatient in District Hospital, Tumkur. the Doctor who has given evidence in respect of her claim has stated that both the fractures are mal-united and there is shortening of 4 cms., in the lower limb, which has resulted in limpin...
P.N. Raghavendra and National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Mr. Narayana P.M a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The appeals are filed by both the claimants for enhancement and also filed by the by the insurance company on the ground of liability are taken together and passed this common order. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and award passed in MVC No. 501/2006 dated 27.11.2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims2. The claimants have taken a ground that the Tribunal has taken the salary as 3,000/- which ought to have been taken as 4,000/-. In order to substantiate the said contention reliance was placed on the deposition of employer, who was examined as PW-3. PW-3 has deposed that the injured was earning about 6,000/- per month. Secondly it is submitted that PW-1 Dr. A. Raja has deposed that the injured has sustained a 100% disability for which attendant charges awarded at 1,40,000/- is inadequate and no charges were awarded for future attendants charges. Hence it is submitted to enhance the compensation.3. The learned counsel for insurance company has submitted insurance company is not lia...
K Sheker Shetty S/O Late Baskva Shetty Vs. Mattew Rebello S/O Victor R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. This is the appeal filed by defendant No.1 under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2010 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City (CCH No.23).2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant and the respondents are referred to by their ranking in the suit as the defendant No,1 the plaintiff and defendant No.2, respectively.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal may be ate ted as under: Respondent No. 1-plaintiff hied a suit in O.S.No.8768/ 2006 on the ilk of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge against the present appellant and his brother-respondent No 2 herein for their ejectment from the suit schedule premises pleading that the defendants are in occupation of the Built schedule premises under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of 7,000/- p.m. and issued a legal notice to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. In spite of the quit notice, the d...
Smt. Durgamma W/O Murudappa Vs. Smt. Gangamma and Sri Hanumanthappa an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
1. The appeal coming on for admission is disposed of having regard to the facts and circumstances as highlighted below.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and the suit was contested. The trial court granted the judgment and decree directing the defendant to refund the price paid under the agreement of sale. This was challenged in appeal and the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for specific performance, directing the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. This having been challenged in second appeal before this Court, this Court found that no reasons were assigned by the lower appellate court to decree the suit for specific performance in directing the defendant to execute the sale deed and therefore, while remanding the matter for rehearing, confirmed the judgment of the trial court. The lower appellate court upon rehearing of the appeal on such remand, has opined that the matter having been remanded, in vie...
Sri V B Puttaswamy Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authori ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. Cancellation of site allotted to the petitioner on the ground of suppression ct facts by the petitioner has given rise to this writ petition.2. The petitioners case is that the 1sl petitioner was allotted a site bearing No. 1662 in Sir M. Visveswaraiah Layout, 8th Block, measuring East to West 18 meters and North to South 12 meters and BDA also executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The 1st petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner under a gift deed dated 10.12.2007. The respondent - BDA cancelled the site allotted to the 1sl petitioner by its cancellation order dated 23.6.2008. The ground on which the allotment was cancelled was that, the petitioner had suppressed the fact of his family owning a house in Bangalore much prior to the petitioner making an application for allotment of site.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application for allotment was made by the 1st petitioner on 17.10.2003 and allotment was made on 7.2.200...
Sri. Lingappa Vs. Smt. GangammA. W/O Revanna and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.289/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.J, Challakere, for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. The suit was decreed on 08.06,2006. 2. Respondents questioned the said decree by filing first appeal in RA.No.55/2006 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Challelaere. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded to the Trial Court for disposal within six months vide judgment dated 10.12.2008. the defendants have filed written statement on 30.01.20O9 and contested the petitioners claim to suit property. Statement of objections was filed for the application seeking temporary injunction. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.l seeking an order of temporary injunction and the Trial Court upon consideration of the application and the objections of the defendants, has passed order dated 03.04.2009 whereby the- order of temporary injunction prayed was declined. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Misc.Appeal i.e. MA No,3/2=309 in the Cou...
M/S Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Vrs Employees Association Vs. M/S Mys ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDER1. This application is filed by the workman seeking direction to the official liquidator to issue Form No. 138 and also to disburse the cheques in respect of their claims. It is seen from the records that the respondent company came to be wound up by the order of this Court dated 07.11.2003 in COP No.45/2001. Consequent to the winding up order, the official liquidator initiated proceedings, invited the claims and they are in the process of adjudicating the claims.2. The petitioner is an employee association of His Company in liquidation. The grievance of the petitioner union is that the official liquidator has not issued Form Ne 138.3. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent official liquidator, if he is directed to issue Form No. 133 to the employees of the petitioner union forthwith. On receipt of the claims from the employee of the petitioner union, the official liquidator is hereby directed to adjudicate the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »