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.
Sarojamma, W/O. Deceased RangappA. and ors Vs. M.Prakash, S/O. Muniya ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
:1. This appeal by the appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16/08/2005 passed in MVC No. 123/2005 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Davangere, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal for short).2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of ?4,34,048/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till actual realization, as against the claim of the appellants for a sum of 10,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Rangappa, in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant no.1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 is the children and appellant Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased Sri. Rangappa and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of 10.00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 6.6.20...
1The Secretary K.E.B. Cauvery Bhavan, Vs. Suresh S/O Ramaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo along with the communication by the 1st appellant in favour of the counsel The communication would state that the 1st appellant is willing to enhance the compensation by a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till date and in addition to the award made by the trial Court, the total sum payable to the respondent would be a sum of Rs.6,34,800/-. On deducting a sum of Rs.1,67,250/- deposited by the appellants before this Court and since withdrawn by the respondent, they are willing to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs.4,67,550/-. The said payment is in full and final settlement of the respondent's claim.2. Sri P.K.Ponnappa, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has to objection to accept the said amount without any further claims against the appellant.3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the D3lance amount of Rs.4,67,550/- shall be de...
Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest Ankola
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. The petitioner has moved an application desiring to withdraw the instant writ petition. This prayer made at the hands of the petitioner has been opposed by the State Government, by filing a statement of objections.2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the decision rendered in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs. DrMahesh Madhav Gosavi and others (AIR 1987 SC 294) and drew our pointed attention to the observations recorded in paragraph 36 thereof. Paragraph 36 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are being extracted hereunder; The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the n...
Sri S.N. Sakri and ors Vs. the Chief Post Master General, Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the applicant in OA.No.643/2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter called as Tribunal') being aggrieved by the order dt. 7th June 2004, wherein the Tribunal has declined to grant the prayer sought for in the application of stepping up of pay on par with the junior of the applicant w.e.f. 1.5.1993 along with interest at 18%. 2. The petitioner herein is in the services of the respondent. Since there was disparity between the amount of salary received by him and the third respondent and he was not entitled to fixing of pay scale on oar with the salary of the third respondent O.A. No.350/2001 was filed by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal for quashing of the order dt. 20.3.2000.The Tribunal allowed the said application vide order dt. 3.6.2002 with the following observations:"For the above reasons, we find merit in the application and the application is accordingly allowed and the order dated ...
N.H.Nataraj. S/O Late N.H.Shankarappa, Vs. Agricultural Produce Market ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for Respondents No.2. Sri H.K. Thimmegowda, learned counsel is directed to take notice for Respondent No 1.2. The petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.55 at APMC yard, Hcnnaii. Davanagere District. The petitioner ought to have to put up construction on the said site within a period of one year from the date of execution of lease cum sale deed. Since the petitioner failed to put up construction as above Respondent No.1 has passed an order dated 24.8.2010 as per Annexure-C forfeiting the site in question. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order 24.8.2010 as per Annexure-C in this writ petition.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not put up construction on the said site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme made under the provisions of the Act due to the reasons beyond his control. I further submit that the pe...
The Divisional Manager of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. Though this matter is listed today for admission, it is taken for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.2. The appellant-insurer has challenged in this appeal the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.04.2010 passed in MVC No.209/2007 by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Member Addl. MACT. Chitradurga. (Hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal for short).3. Arguments of Sri P.B.Raju, the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer are heard. Perused the impugned Judgment and Award.4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident that occurred on 14.12.2005 was owned by one Satyanarayana. The third respondent before the Claims Tribunal and was insured with the present appeliant-Insu ranee Company which was fourth respondent before the Claims Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was taken on lease by K.S.R.T.C. which was first respondent before the Claims Tribunal and t...
The Management of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Central ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. Heard. On Kiso.W.9497/2010, Misc.W.9498/2010.2. These applications have been filed for recalling the order dated 26.05.2010, though four weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections, the same was not corralled with,3. Since the office objections are not complied with, within the time granted by this Court, the appeal stood dismissed by peremptory order passed on 2 6.05.2010.4. Misc.W.9498/2010 is filed to recall the order dated 26.05.2010 S Misc.W.9497/2010 is filed to condone the delay of 94 days in filing the recalling application. Both affidavits supporting.5. In view of the averments made in the affidavits supporting the applications, we hold that sufficient cause has been made out and it is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondents regarding the above said applications as respondents were not served on 26.5.2010.6. Having regard to the averments made in the applications are supported by the affidavits, we hold sufficient cause has been made out to condon...
Sri Narayana Hebbar S/0.Late Narasimha Hsbbar Vs. Smt B Jayashree S Bh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. These appeals are filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2009, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi dated 8.1.1988 and 21.12.2001 and refitted rho matter for fresh consideration after notice to the petitioner, apart from legal representatives, who may represent Pararneshwaraiah.2. Responden Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.38513/2003 ILRj being aggrieved by the order of the Land Trbiunal, Udupi dated 8.1.1988 and also the order dated 21.12.2001 as per annexures F' & h to the writ petition respectively. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that they are the daughters of one Pararneshwaraiah of Chantar Village, Brahmavar in Udupi Taluk. The father of the petitioners owned agricultural lands in several survey numbers and of different varieties, including punja, nanja and bhagayath lands. One of the punja land was under survey No. 117/1...
Nivrutha Powra Seva Nowkaraka Shangha, and anr Vs. the State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. Recording the submission of learned Government Advocate that by order dated 16.6.2010, the benefit of the Government Order dated 12.4.2010 vide Annexure-B is extended to the Retired Municipal employees, the first graver is rendered in fructuous.2. As regards second prayer to extend the benefit of D.A. as and when granted to the retired Government Servants to the petitioners as well without waiting further approval form the Government, learned Government Advocate submits that automatic extension of benefit of D.A. to retired Municipal employees as and when granted to retired Government servants is not possible because of the commitment of the State Government to pay pension to the Urban Local Body(ULB) employees(recruited prior to 8-7-2004) is contingent on pension contribution of 1/8 of the salary bill by the Urban Local Body. Accordingly, learned Government Advocate submits that whenever D.A. increase is given to the State Government Employees and pensioners, first respondent ...
State by Holalkere Police Vs. Aruna @ Aruna Kumai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 01.02.2005 passed by the Addl. S.J., Fast Track Court, Chitradurga .n S.C. No.66/2004 acquitting the Respondent of the offence U/s.376 of IPC.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.2003 at about 1.30 p.m. in Kanthamaranahalli gomala land of Kumaranahaili village within the jurisdiction of Holalkere Police Station, the accused committed rape on CWI - Manjulamma thereby he is alleged to be guilty of the offence U/s.376 of IPC. 3. Alter securing the presence of the accused, the prosecution In order to prove its case has examined in all 16 witnesses and got marked Ex.Pl to P8 and produced M.0.1 - 4 bangle pieces worn by CWl. 'Hie defence of the accused is one of total denial. He has got marked Exs.Dl to D4 including the certified copy of the complaint in Crl.Misc.293/2003 and FIR in Crime No.371/2003. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the defense has come to the conclusion that the ev...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »