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.
K.Venkataraju. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
:1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 21/11/2005 passed in MVC No. 3411/1998 by the 18th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Bangalore, (SCCH-4), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). judgment and award, the appellant has presented this appeal.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said The injured has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of 4,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.8.1998 at about 3.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing No.56-V-242594 near Kantharaj Circle on Mu)bagi!u-Kolar Road. In the said accident, injured-claimant has sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he has been admitted to Deva...
Jaleel. Aged About 33 Years. S/O. Late Unjakka Vs. Paul D. SouzA. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties it is taken up for final disposal.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. Brief facts of the case are:That on 28.05.2005 when the claimant was proceeding in a lorry bearing registration No.CNX 5230 as a cleaner from Kuloor side towards Thannirbavi after loading sand, near K.I.O.C.F. factory on N.H.17 the lorry met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, as a result the claimant was thrown out to the road and sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT. Mangalore seeking compensation of 5.00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of 51,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, negligence and liability of the Insurer of ...
A Ismail Sadiy a Manzil and ors Vs. MohiddIn S/O Ahamed and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 20.07.2004 passed in MVC No. 654/1998 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Additional MACT, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal' for brevity). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award awarded a sum of Rs.7,488/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. The occurrence of the accident and resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was admitted for about three days and undergone treatment as inpatient and he has produced the medical bills not 6,788/- and they might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered property by the Tribunal and awarded meager compensation of ...
B P Akalwadi S/O.Sri Pundalikappa Vs. Sri Raju Chawla the Managing Dir ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. The instant contempt petition came to be filed at the hands of the complainant-petitioner alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2009 whereby Writ Petition bearing No. 14643/2005 filed by the complainant petitioner was disposed of.2. A perusal of the order passed by this Court reveals, that the impugned order of dismissal from service (passed against the petitioner) was quashed, whereupon, the competent authority was required to re-consider the claim of the complainant-petitioner with specific reference to the defense set up by him. The operative part of the order dated 7.9.2009 is being extracted hereunder: "The matter is remanded to the first respondent for reconsideration with particular reference to the defense set up by the petitioner and to address the same by offering valid reasons in either accepting the enquiry report or rejecting the same."In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the competent authority, tak...
Smt. Ramya R Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.282/2010 of Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore City, now pending on the file of X ACMM, Bangalore.2. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondent-State. He submits that suitable orders may be passed. To that effect, he has made an endorsement on the Memo dated 2.11.2010 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to compound and to withdraw the complaint.3. Petitioner and her counsel are present before the Court. In the petition, petitioner has stated that she is not intending to prosecute me accused and proceed with the case. The petitioner and accused have settled the matter amicably. Therefore, she pays to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.282/2010 of Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore City.4. The complaint was lodged by R.Rajesh for taking necessary action against the accused-Neeraj. The all...
Manje Gowda S/O. Siddea Gowda and ors Vs. H N Veerappan S/O. Nanjappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimants 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 6-4-06. when the deceased Ashok @ Ashok Kumar was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No KA-13-Q-2337 along with his friend as pillion rider towards Hassan, a lorry bearing registration No.MEC 3387 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. His parents, two unmarried major sisters and a minor younger brother filed a claim petition before the MACT, Hassan, seeking compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs.3.58,000/-...
Nagaraju N., S/O Late G. Narayanappa, Vs. the Managing Direccor, Bmtc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1716/2006 dated 17.5.2007 on the file or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore.2. Nagaraju N., the appellant in MFA No. 12258/2007 was the claimant before the Tribunal. The Managing Director of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short), the respondent in the said appeal was the owner of the offending vehicle.3. Nagaraju N, filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Ks.15 lakhs from the Corporation on account of the injury said to have been sustained by him in the accident occurred on 25.12.2005. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.12.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. he was travelling in the bus bearing No.KA-01 F-1710 belonging to the Corporation. He was sitting at hind portion of the bus. The bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus came near Kanteeravana Stadium, the driver of the bus suddenly applied break resulting i...
T.M.C.Basanna, S/O.T.G.Mallamma Vs. Pavithra Halakatti,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore dated 22-2-2005 passed in O.S.No.857/04 is called in question by the appellant herein.2. Appellant was the defendant in the suit and the respondents were plaintiffs before the court below.3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal arc as hereunder:Defendant is the owner of the property bearing No.9/3, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Under an agreement dated 9-7-2003, the appellant-defendant agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of f. 1.70.00.000/- and on the date of the agreement, a sum of 25.00,000/- was paid as advance. The balance sale consideration of 1,45.00.000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The time stipulated to execute the sale deed was on 15th December 2003. The plaintiffs further stated that in order to secure the better title, a paper publication was also issued inviting objections if any, by the third pa...
Nanjappa, S/O. Late Honnaiah, Vs. Boraian, S/O. Late Honnaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.1461/2006, wherein the relief prayed is partition, separate possession and consequential reliefs. Respondent has filed O.S.7061/2007 aga.nst the petitioner for recovery of possession. The parties are ore-triers. Respondent claims that there was a prior partition and the suit property fell to his share and the same if his absolute property. I.A.2 was filed by the petitioner under S.10 CPC to stay further proceedings of O.S.7061/2007 till the disposal of O.S.1461/2000 filed by him. Prayer in the application having been opposed, the Trial Court upon consideration has rejected I.A.2. Said order has been questioned in this writ petition.2. After the impugned order was passed, the petitioner filed Misc.Petition under S.24 CPC to withdraw one of the suits to make over the same to the Court wherein the other suit is pending. The said petition has been allowed and both the suits are now being tried in one and the same Court.3. Prima facie, suits ha...
The Management of Varavinayaka Educational Society and anr Vs. Smt Jes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners have called in question the order dated .14.08.2003 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore (for short the 'EAT) in MA (EAT) No.36/95. By the said order, the EAT has set aside the order dated 12.09.1995 and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent into service with back wages from 12.09.1995.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.3. The facts disclose that at an earlier point in time, the respondent herein was before the EAT in EAT No.28/94 alleging that, her services had been terminated on 07.06.1994. During the pendency of the said appeal, the parties are stated to have filed a memo before the EAT. However, the order dated 05.11.1994 passed in EAT No.28/94 would disclose that the impugned order dated 07.06.1994 in the said appeal v/as set aside and the petitioners herein were directed to reinstate the respondent into service. Subsequent thereto, the respondent herein though was reinstated...
- ‹ Prev
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- Next ›
- Last »