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.
Ramakrishna Naik, Vs. Kv Veerappan and United India Insurance Company ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 14-8-2000, when the claimant was travelling in the jeep bearing registration No. KA-25-M-3356 along with others, from Tumkur to Sira town near Santhe Pete, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-01-A-2484 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Madhugiri, seeking compensation of .2,00,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of 20,000/-with interest. at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimant is in appeal seeking ...
Sri P. Premchand, and ors Vs. Sri Moolendra Kumar Gandhi and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This petition is filed seeking the review of the order, dated 4.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.2107/09. The review petition is filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 7 in the writ petition proceedings. To avoid the confusion, the parties in the review proceedings are referred to as per their ranks in the writ petition.2. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:"JO. The petitioners and me contesting respondents are directed to appear before the concerned Officer of the respondent No.1 (Assistant Revenue Officer, Chandralayout range) at 10.30 a.m. on 23.10.2010 without waiting for any notice from the said Assistant Revenue Officer. On considering the view-points to be put across by the rival parties and acting in the letter arid spirit of the judicial pronouncements to which a reference is made hereinabove, the Assistant Revenue Officer shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within six weeks from 23.10.2010."3. Sri Ravishankar, the learned counsel for t...
Sri Ramaiah S/O Late Muniramaiah and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Though the matter is posted for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main matter itself is taken up for disposal.2. Writ petitioners are persons who claim to be legal heirs of one Muniramaiah who is no more and who all claim to be residents of Vavasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.3. Writ petitioners - four in number claim to be khatedars in respect of lands measuring an extent of 3 acres in Sy. No.40, new No.40/P14 of Bandikodigehalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as ordered by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk in terms of the order bearing No.LND SR 287/60-61 dated 21.4.1962.4. It is the further version of the petitioners that their father belonged to weaker section of the society and subject land had been granted to him free of cost, but had during his lifetime, in violation of the conditions of the grant had sold it and the present writ petitioners, after the demise of their father had petitioned t...
M. Chinnaiah, S/O Late L. Madaiah Vs. the Chief Post Master. Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDERThis petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.345/2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Bangalore Bench (hereinafter called the Tribunal) being aggrieved by the order dated 12-4-2004 wherein the Tribunal has confirmed the order dated 10-4-2003 as per Anncxure-A4 communicating that since the applicant has officiated in HSG I post purely in a leave arrangement locally. he was not eligible for grant of certificate enabling benefit of pay fixation for the purpose of calculating average emoluments and thereby revise and refix the pension with consequential benefits.2. It is the case of the petitioner in the application that when he was working as HSG Grade II post, he was officiating in HSG Grade I from 1-5-2002 to 14-5-2002. Thereafter he went on leave while officiating in HSG Grade I from 15-5-2002 to 30-5-2002 and thereafter he worked in HSG Grade I on officiating basis and attained the age of superannuation on 31-5-2002. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted t...
P.M. Ramaswamy S/O Muninanjappa Vs. Chickballapura Taluk Agricultural ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Misc.W. 10305 of 2010, is filed seeking vacation of the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent No.1, that the present petition is filed on a misconception that the petitioner's term would end only as on 09.12.2010, whereas, Section 29-F(5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 prescribes that the term shall be for a period of 2 Yz years and since the petitioner was elected on 09.06.2008, the term would necessarily come to an end on 09.12.2010.2. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the Act, namely, the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 defines a "co-operative year" or "year" as meaning the year commencing from 1st April of each year, which would mean that the years contemplated under Section 29-F(5) would have to be construed as 2lA years of a cooperative year. Notwithstanding the date of election, it would be with reference to 1st April of each year, that 2i years would have to be...
Sri Laxmana, S/O. Late Nanjundappa and ors Vs. Sri Ramappa, S/O. Late ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule premises. Written statement was filed and the claim of the plaintiff was contested. Issues were framed on 23.2.10. Petitioners filed I.A.2, for framing of additional issues suggested therein. The plaintiff filed statement of objections and the Trial Court having found I.A.2 to be devoid of merit, has dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed this writ petition.2. Sri J.G. Chandra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that in view of the defense put forty in the written statement dated 16.2.10, the additional issues suggested in I.A.2 do arise for determination and hence, the Trial Court is not justified in declining to raise the additional issues suggested.3. I have perused the writ petition papers.4. The suit is one for recovery of possession. Based on the material pleadings and taking into consideration the scope of the suit, the...
M. Bharath Kumar, S/O M. Marudappa Vs. the Principal Government Ramana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The facts are as follows:-The petitioner who was the student of respondent no. 1 - College in the Bachelor of Commerce course had taken the examinations for the IV and V Semester during May 2010 session. The petitioner had simultaneously taken the IV and V Semester examinations and has produced the marks card of the examination hall in proof of the same. It is his case that the results of the said semester examinations were announced in the 2" week of June 2010. The petitioner was declared as passed as was ascertained from the weh-siie of the second respondent. The petitioner thereafter approached the first respondent - College in order to collect the marks card. The college authorities had stated that they are yet to receive the marks card from the second respondent. The petitioner thereafter approached the college authorities on several occasions: For one or the other reason the petitioner was given to understand that the college was y...
Shri G SrinivasA. S/O Late a Ganesha Vs. Union of India Ministry of Hu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. In the light of the notification dated 31.10.2008 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) specifying that the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (13 of 1985) shall apply to the 2nd respondent - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi. it is needless to state that the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the said Act has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis brought before this Court in this petition. Having regard to Section 29 of the said Act providing for transfer of pending cases, this petition requires to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.In the result, the Registry' is directed to transfer the proceedings to the Central Administrative Tribunal to deal with the case from the stage before transfer. Parties to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 25.11.2010....
Smt.V.Nandini W/O Dr.H.C.Ravi Vs. Sri.H.C.Ravi S/O Dr.H.T.Chidanand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner, wife of the respondent has filed this petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. praying that the case in M.C.No.264/2010 pending on the file of the Family Court at Mysore may be transferred to the Family Court at Bangalore2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 11.09.2002 at Bangalore and the petitioner is presently residing in Bangalore, but the respondent has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.264/10 before the Family Court at Mysore. It is submitted that the petitioner has no means and also not convenient to attend the case at Mysore.3. Though the respondent has entered appearance, he has not filed objections to the petition.4. Keeping in view that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was took place on 11.09.2002 at Bangalore and the petitioner is permanently residing in Bangalore and she has no means to go and attend the Court at Mysore, it is ...
State by Mandi Police Vs. Kaleem Pash S/O. Late Mabamed Ghouse
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge. Mysore in S.C.No.95/2003 acquitting the respondent of the offence U/s.307 and 302 IPC.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.11.2002 at about 12 noon in the House of the deceased Zareena aged about 25 years, bearing D.No.2317. 22nd cross. Ashoka road, Lashkar Mohalla within the limits of Mandi Police station. Mysore the accused threw acid on the body of the deceased Zareena. Thereby she sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 27.12.2002 while being treated in the hospital, thereby it is alleged that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased which is punishable U/s.302 IPC.3. If is further charged against the accused that on the said date, time and place, he has voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 Haseena by means of acid thereby he has committed offence U/s.324 IPC.4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 18 witnesses and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- Next ›
- Last »