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.
Branch Manager. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and ors Vs. Smt. Sudha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
:1. These two appeals by the Insurer and the claimants arc arising out of the same judgment and award dated 07/02/2005 passed in MVC No. 5050/2001 on the file of the IX Addl. Judge. Court of Small Causes. Member. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII. Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of 9,80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of 35,00,000/-, on account of the on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Suresh.G.S. in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The claimant No. 1 is the wife claimants Nos. 2 to 5 are the minor children and claimant No.6 is the mother of the deceased Sri. Suresh G.S. and they have faded a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the ...
The Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.2573/2006 dated 11.12.2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The appellant was the respondent before the Tribunal and the respondent was the claimant.2. The respondent filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.4.2006. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and liability of the appellant/Corporation to pay the compensation. The only contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is that the award of compensation is excessive.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30.000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance & nourishment and attendant charges; Rs.30,000/- towards physical disability & loss of amenities; Rs.9,000/- towards los...
Smt.SarithA.C.J. W/O.Sri.Jagadeesh.K.M Vs. Sri. Jagadeesh. K. M.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner, viz., the wife of the respondent is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of the case in M.C.No.40/2010 pending on the file of Family Court at Davanagere to the Family Court at Bangalore.2. Though the petition is listed for admission, heard arguments for final disposal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing at Bangalore and it is not convenient for her to go and attend the case at Davanagere. It is stated that the respondent is also residing at Bangalore in B.T.M layout. But intentionally filed the divorce case at Davanagere.4. The respondent has filed objection stating that in M.C.No.40/2010. Notice was sent to the address at Koramangala. But it was redirected to Davanagere. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition.5. The respondent, while filing the case in M.C.No.40/2010 against the petitioner for divorce, has shown her address at Bangalore also. Since the petitioner is a Software Engineer and re...
Sri.B.R.Prakash. and ors Vs. the Secretary of the Co-operative Dept.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This is plaintiffs appeal directed against the order dated 23.10.2009 passed on an application under Order VII Rule II of CPC filed by the Respondent No.4/Defendant No.4.2. For the purpose of convening arid better understanding, 'the appellants' and 'the Respondents 1 to 4' are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and 'the defendants' as arraigned in the Trial Court.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit on 20.06.2009 against the respondents/defendants for Judgment and Decree restraining the defendants permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing No.41. 1 Main. Attiguppe, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40. Under the purported notice dated 06.05.2009. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the children of late M.V.Rudrachar who died in the year 200(1 whereas their mother Nagarathnamma died on 17.03.2005. It is claimed that aft...
Venkatesh, S/O Nandan @ Nanjundappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 53 and 54 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 praying to set aside the judgment dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM and Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Shimoga in J.C.No.46/07 and be tried under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child)2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State, this matter is heard on merits.3. The question that arises for my consideration in this Revision Petition is whether the learned Sessions Judge, Shimoga in S.C. No.182/2007, considering the age of the juvenile based on the medical report of the petitioners is correct or not In this regard, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board is not empowered to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and he does not have p...
Union of India by Secretary, Department of Posts, and ors Vs. Ramesh H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The Union of India and Department of Posts has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 11-6-2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.215/2009.2. The respondent herein had filed an application challenging the order dated 23-4-2009 by which he was re-posted as Grameena Dak Sevak (GDS BPM) and had sought for quashing of the said order and for consequential benefits. The Tribunal allowed the application of the respondent and directed reinstatement of the respondent as Postal Assistant with ail consequential benefits and to treat the intervening period from 24-2-2009 till the date of his reinstatement as period on duty and granted three months time for compliance. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have preferred this writ petition.3. The respondent was appointed as GDS BPM on 26-4-2001. By notification dated 14-2-2007 examination was notified for selection to the post of Postal Assistants from GDS category. The responde...
M. Upendra Nayak Vs. Bhavani Aged 70 Years, W/O Late Vishwanatha Nayak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Heard the counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court in a suit for partition and separate possession. The first respondent herein had contested the suit and in the written statement, had raised a plea that the suit schedule property described in the written statement was also available for partition and that the plaintiff could not claim it as his exclusive property and could not have excluded the same from the suit schedule properties. The trial court accepted this contention and in decreeing the suit, held that the written statement X schedule property was also liable for partition and directed partition of the same. This having been carried in appeal, the lower appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court. It is this which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant while seeking to urge the purported substantial questions of law framed in this appeal would contend that the land ...
Sri.M.Radhakrishna S/O.Munikrishnappa Vs. Smt.Manjuvani W/O.M. Radhakr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed on 17th December 2003, by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in MC.No. 1532/2000.2. The aforesaid petition was filed by the appellant requesting the court to dissolve the marriage solemnized between him and the respondent on 1-8-1990 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The parties are residing separately from June 1993. Out of their wedlock, the parties have a son by name Vignesh who is studying in an Engineering College.3. Today, the parties have filed a joint memo. The appellant has agreed to pay a sum of 3.50.000/-within a period of 90 days from today towards maintenance and educational expenses of his son Vignesh which is inclusive of past and future maintenance. Similarly the appellant has agreed to pay a sum of 1,00.000./- towards the permanent alimony to the respondent within a period of 90 days from today. In addition to the amount of 3,50,000/- payable by th...
Smt. Parvathamma W/O Lae Gopala Gowda and ors Vs. Sri. M K Mudhuranand ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The 1st respondent has filed O.S.No.2191/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.,) at Devanahalli, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 herein, for the reliefs of partition and separate possession in respect of 19 items of properties shown in the plaint schedule. Except the 7th defendant, all other defendants have filed written statements and have contested the suit claim.2. I.A No.14 was filed by the plaintiff seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 from putting up any construction or proceeding with the construction in suit item No.3 i.e., Survey No.45/1 of Mybnahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, to which, statement of objections was filed and the prayer was opposed. The defendants 1 to 4 undertook that, they would not seek any equity in the event of suit being decreed and the property in question being allotted to the plaintiff. Upon consideration, the trial court allowed I.A No. 14 and restrained the defendants 1 to...
State of Karnataka Vs. Rangappa, S/O. Ballarigowda and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 16.08.2004 passed by the III Addl. S.J. Tumkur in S.C.No.9/03 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable U/SS. 143, 147, 148, 427. 302 and 201 r/w. Sec. 149 of IPC.2. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.03.2002 at 7.30 a.m. in Lakshmidevarahalli village within the jurisdiction of Turuvekere Police Station, all the accused persons have formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like clubs and wooden reapers and with common object to commit an act of rioting with deadly weapons, committed the murder of deceased Huchhegowda. Thereafter, they had voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 - Nagarathnamma, CW2 - Boregowda. CW3 - Raju. CW4 - Kempegowda and CW5 - Chidananda and wrongfully confined the said persons and caused death of Huchhegowda by murdering him and further they had caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence by throwing the deadbody of Huchegowda in a tank by tying stone t...
- ‹ Prev
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- Next ›
- Last »