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.
M.Ashok. S/O Sanjeeva BclchadA. Vs. the Managing Partner M/S. Coastal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Appellant is the claimant being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 08-11-2006 passed in MVC No. 1689/2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Ill & II Addl. District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, ("the Tribunal' for short), has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation to his damaged vehicle.2. The claimant has contended that he is the owner of Jeep bearing registration No.CNX-4647. The said jeep met with an accident on 26.05.2004 at about 10.15 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of Mini Lorry bearing registration No KA-1QA-S816 near Anegundi of Kanakamajaly village in Sullia taluk. The claimant has contended that on 26.05.2004 the said vehicle while moving towards Sullia driven by Gangadhara Belchada, who died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-19A-8816 sustained damages. The said vehicle was shifted to the garage for the repair. The claimant has contended that he has spent 27....
Sri.Rajendra @ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State by Bldadi Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.361/2010, registered for an offence punishable under section 392 IPC. He is in judicial custody. He is seeking bail.2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State.3. As per first information and other investigation records, on 20.06.2010 at about 5.15 p.m., when the wife of first informant namely lathamani and her brother-in-law were in their house, two unknown persons came near their house and asked Lathamani to provide drinking water. When said Lathamani went inside to bring drinking water, the petitioner and accused No. 1 entered the house and held out threats to their life and committed robbery of cash, gold jewellery and silver articles. There after. Lathamani and her brother-in-law raised hue and cry. The public chased and caught an unknown person (petitioner herein). Another accused (accused No.1) lied away and escaped. Accused No. 1 is still at large.4. The petitioner is aged about 20 years...
C. Venkateshappa, S/O Chikka Ajjappa Vs. Smt. Narayanamma and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. The appeal coming on for admission is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances.2. The appellant was the purchaser of the suit property who was in possession of the same. He was not a party to the suit before the trial Court. It is only in execution proceedings, after there was a decree in favour of the second respondent, that appellant took steps to file an appeal against the judgment and decree. The appeal was heard on merits. The question whether the appellant was entitled to file an appeal against the judgment and decree in respect of which he was not a party was the main question considered by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court ultimately held that the appellant was indeed entitled to file an appeal. However, the appellate Court did not chose to afford any further opportunity to contest the case of the plaintiff.3. The lower appellate Court having held that the appellant was entitled to file an appeal, it would necessarily have...
The Managing Director Ksrtc Vs. M H Mangalakumari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is by the KSRTC cht lie jibing the award on the grounds of both negligence and quantum.2. Heard.3. For the sake of commence, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the reality petition are:On 24-11.2006, when the claimant was alighting from the bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-6984, the driver of the bus moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without any signal from the conductor. As a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. Hence she filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,04,830/- with interest at6%p.a.5. The learned Counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint to police about the alleged accident and claimant has failed to establish the fact that she sustained injury in the accident. No medical records are prod...
Sri Basavaraj B Vs. Kundan Singh and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Dissatisfied claimant is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.1.2007 in MVC.994/97 on the file of Additional MACT. Tumkur, seeking enhancement.2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.3. Appellant sought compensation for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 2.9.1997 involving a lorry bearing No.MW-4558. In this regard, he alleged the accident was the result of negligent driving of the lorry driver, consequent to which he lost control. Claimant suffered 7 injuries including lacerated wound over the right frontal region, abrasion over right outer cantus of eye, abrasion over temple, abrasion over parotid region, abrasion over left wrist, abrasion on the lower ankle, tenderness of right forearm radiating from right shoulder. During his hospitalization, it was found that he has suffered dislocation of right shoulder joint and fracture of right wrist bone and upper portions of right arm; the doctor who examined him assessed physical disability despite treatment...
K N Prabhakar S/O Ningappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral): 1. Sri Nagaraja N. Naidu, Advocate for the petitioners. Sri R.G.Kolle. learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Sri B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment rendered by this Court in decided on W.P.No.80817/2009(GM-MMS), 02.06.2009.3. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the respondents states, that if the petitioners produce authentic material before respondent No.2, showing that royalty was paid in respect of the sand being transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from whom the petitioners had purchased the sand, the respondents would refund the royalty charged from the petitioners.4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to produce material before the concerned respondent No. 2, depicting that royalty had already been paid by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand which was pur...
A.R. Kriahnamurthy S/O Late B.Rachaiah Vs. K.C. Rangaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The defendants in the suit being aggrieved by the order passed on LA.No.7 have fifed this writ petition.2. I A,No.7 was filed under Order 26 Rule 10(a) of Code of Civil Procedure to record the admitted and disputed signatures of B.Madiah, to the Commissioner for comparison and for submission of the report thereof. The prayer in the application having been objected by the LR's of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order.3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, the Trial Court has taken into consideration matters which are extraneous insofar as answering the prayer in I .A.No.7 is concerned, The Court ought to have confined the consideration as to whether there is a need for referring the documental in question for comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. Instead, it has recorded findings with regard to the benami transactions and the merit of the defense put forth in the written statement. On account of the misdirection adopted, I.A.ffo.7 has...
The Union of India Vs. Sri P. Sudhakar Son of Ganapat Poojari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the respondent in Application No.455/2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter called as Tribunal" for short) being aggrieved by the order dt. 2nd June 2010, wherein the Tribunal has disposed of the application with certain direction that the applicant shall be subjected to medical examination by the respondent - petitioner herein and subject to the result of the medical examination further steps would be taken as directed.2. The applicant-respondent herein joined the services of the petitioner as Helper, Grade-II on 4.9.1997. He was selected through recruitment after various tests theory, practical including viva-voce and he had put in unblemished sender and gained appreciation of his seniors. It is the further case of the applicant that he was suffering from mental illness and amnesia and without knowing the consequences lie had made application seeking resignation to the post. He was not aware o...
B. Kumar, and B. Gayathri, Vs. B. Balakrishna and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners instituted O.S. No.2520/2000 against the respondents herein seeking the relief of partition of the suit schedule property, separate possession of their 2/3rd share in addition to declaration, permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs.2. A copy of the plaint has been produced by the petitioners at Annexure-'B". The respondents filed their written statements denying the allegations and the copy of the written statement has been produced at Annexure-"C. After framing of the issues, the matter was; posted for evidence. P.W.I was examined in chief partly and at that time, the learned offset for the plaintiffs brought to the notice of the witness a certified copy of the registered Will dated 29.C5.1963 executed by the grand father of P.W.I-late Betaraya Shetty and requested to mark this document. This request was objected by the defendants i.e., the respondents herein on the ground that the document has to be marked only though an attesting witness and as P.W.I...
Skol Breweries Limited Vs. Mysore Sales International Limited and Comp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts briefly stated are as follows: M/s. Mysore Breweries Limited (Hereinafter referred to as 'MBL' for brevity) is a company engaged in the manufacture of beer. It is merged with the petitioner herein. The present dispute however relates to the affairs of MBL. The Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Excise Rules' for brevity) provides for licensing and sale of Indian and foreign liquor. Rule 3(11) of the Excise rules contemplate the distributers who is torn the liquor is also secure a license under the act.The Government of Karnataka introduced the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors)(Amendment)Rules, 1989 and amended Rule 3(ll)(b) of the Excise Rules, with the object of preventing the sale of unaccounted liquor and evasion of tax by the manufacturers and i' was decided to regulate the sale of liquor through a single agency.Though the amendment was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »