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 Lax Man Kharvi Vs. Mathew S/O Latek.M. Sabastin
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they ore referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case:On 07.05.2006, when the claimant was travelling as a passenger in a Maxi cab tempo bearing registration No.KA-20-A-1919 from Rahuthana Katte side towards Byndoor side, near Sankadabagilu Mane Bridge of Ydthara Village near Byndoor, the driver of the said cab drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, the claimant fen down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.3,20,430/- with interest at 5%.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises my consideration in the ...
Praveen D'Souza S/O Felix D'Souza vs. Mr Victor Braggs S/O Late Marian ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner had filed W.P.28174/10 against an order dated 21.8.10 passed on I.A.14 in O.S.275/06 by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore. The said writ petition was dismissed with observations. Seeking expunging of certain observation made by the Trial Court in the aforesaid order, this review petition has been filed.2. Sri P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that, for consideration of the prayer in I.A. 14, it was unnecessary for the Trial Court 10 have made the observation with regard to Ex.P82 i.e., those at para 7 on page 6 of the order of the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that, the unnecessary observations if not expunged, the petitioner would suffer prejudice of irremediable nature.3. Sri Pundikei ishwara Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. On the other hand, submitted that, keeping in view the prayer in I.A.14 and the submissions made, the Trial Court was justified in making the ob...
Sri H Krishnappa Vs. Sri M.D. Ashwathnarayan Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S. No.9714/2006 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the petitioner/defendant for a decree granting specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.11.2004 and for permanent injunction in respect of the property described in the plaint schedule. The petitioner has filed written statement and has contested the suit. Issues having been raised based on the material pleadings trial of the suit has taken place.2. Petitioner filed LA No.3 under Sections 33 & 34 of. the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Section 151 of CPC to impound the original agreement of sale dated 25.11.2004 marked as Ex.P-1 on the ground that, the same is insufficiently stamped. The respondent has filed statement of objections. The trial court has dismissed LA No.3. The defendant has filed this writ petition questioning the said order. 3. Sri T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that, the trial court has committed a manife...
Sri.S.P.Prabhu and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for Respondents 1 to 3. Learned AGA.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 3 WP 33787/20103. The Tahsildar - Respondent No.3 issued a Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 25 guntas in S.No.43 of Somathhanahally Village. After the issuance of the Saguvali Chit, the petitioner made representations on 23-06-2010, 03-08 2010 and 1309-2010 to effect entry in the Record of Rights in pursuance of the Saguvali Chit issued in his favour Despite the representations made. Respondent No.3 has not taken any steps to enter the name of the petitioner in the records. It is under these circumstances that the petition has been filed.4. Learned AGA submits that the petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the Saguvali Chit has been issued in favour of the petitioner.5. Any how. if the respondents have issued a Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioner, it is necessary to make...
Smt. Parvathamma W/O Late Byrappa and ors Vs. Smt. Uma W/O Late Munira ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.2. The present appeal is filed by the defendants in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had executed an agreement of sale, dated 1.7.1988 in respect of the suit properties and had received a sale consideration of Rs. 12,000/- and had agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties upon the repeal of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the Fragmentation Act' for brevity). The Act v/as repealed by Karnataka Act No.4/1991 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 05.02.1991. In spite of such repeal, the defendants having failed to execute and register the sale deed as agreed on repeated demands, the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 9.10.1995, which was returned unnerved and thereafter, the sui...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the Deputy Labour Commi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The termination of services of the third respondent-conductor in the petitioner-Corporation was held to be invalid and directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, however, without backwages by award dated 30.10.2007 in I.D.No.23/2005 before the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore as per Annexure 'B'.2. Sequentially, the petitioner has complied with the award and reinstated the third respondent to report to duty on 24.2.2008 under divisional establishment order dated 26.2.2008.3. In that view of the matter, the proceedings initiated by the third respondent under Payment of Gratuity Act for determination of gratuity must fail and the amount paid to the third respondent as gratuity on termination of service ought to be refunded to the Corporation.4. In the result, petition is allowed. Order dated 19.5.2008 as per Annexure 'D' of the controlling authority under Payment of Wages Act as well as the order dated 28.2.2009 as per Annexure 'E' of the appellate authority are quash...
Smt. ShameemunnissA. and anr Vs. Smt. Habbebunnissa, and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Respondents have filed suit against the petitioners for the relief of ejectment. The petitioners have filed written statement and have contested the suit. Trial has commenced. For the plaintiffs 2 witnesses have deposed. The witnesses were not cross-examined by the defendants. Hence, they were discharged. Noticing that, the defendants have not come forward to adduce evidence, arguments were heard and the suit was posted for judgment. At that stage, petitioners filed I.As.4, 5 and 6 i.e., for reopening of the case, recalling of PW.1 and to adduce evidence on their behalf. The applications having been opposed, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed these writ petitions.2 Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record.3. In the termination notice dated 3.3.2008, the rent payable by the petitioners was shown as ?1200/- p.m. i.e., in respect of the premises bearing No 24, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, measuring 20' x 20'. The p...
Dargah Hazrat Attaulla Shah Vs. Zakira Begam W/O Lake Sheik and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The judgment debtor No.2 in Ex.P No.25095/2009 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore, is the petitioner. The respondents filed the said execution case praying for issue of delivery of possession of the schedule property to them. An application having been filed by the decree holders to direct the judgment debtors to re-deliver the possession of the schedule property, the execution court has allowed the application by its order dated 15.07.2010. Aggrieved, the judgment debtor No.2 has filed this writ petition.2. Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly contends that, one Smt.Tayaba Asgar has filed O.S.No.15/2009 (Ex.D-5) for the belief of permanent injunction, along with an application for temporary injunction (Ex.D-6) and the said suit is pending (Ex.D-7), against the petitioner & another in respect of the property in dispute. Learned counsel submits that, the respondents/decree holders have also filed O.S.No.26377/2007 against the petitioner...
A.N.Satyanarayana and Krishnamurthy Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners have sought for a declaration that they cannot be dispossessed without any valid order. They have also sought for an injunction against the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners except otherwise than due process of law.2. Petitioners are the tenants in respect of certain premises as mentioned in the writ petitions on monthly rent. The premises belong to Muzarai Department. According to the petitioners, they have been carrying on the business in the shops since a long time. They allege that respondent No.4 came to the spot and threatened the petitioners with dire consequences if they do not vacate the premises within a week. Immediately thereafter, these writ petitions are filed.3. Sri Narendra Prasad learned Government Advocate on instructions submits that the lease granted in favour of the petitioners has expired in the year 1995 itself. However, the petitioners are continuing in possession of the property. They have not paid the r...
Kumari Sruthi K V D/O Sri. K P Sreedharan Vs. the Registrar (Evaluatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner had joined the 2'-(1 respondent college for the study of 1st year BHMS course in August. 2008 for the academic year 2008-09. It is a 4 years course. She has appeared for the examination of the 1st year BHMS course in December. 2009. She has passed in one subject namely 'Homoeopathic material Medical and Therapeutics' and has failed in other 4 subjects. The marks list of Is" year BHMS course is at Annexure-B. She has applied for the challenge valuation in respect of 4 failed subjects namely 'Organon of Medicine, Principles Horn. Philosophy & Psychology'. 'Anatomy'. 'Physiology including Biochemistry', and 'Homoeopathy Pharmacy'. The University issued marks list as per Annexure-D disclosing the result of the challenge valuation. As per the marks list at Annexure-D, she has passed in the subjects 'Organon of Medicine. Principles Horn. Philosophy & Psychology" Physiology including Biochemistry'; and 'Homoeopathy Pharmacy'. She has failed in the subject 'Anatomy'. She...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »