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.
SiddegowdA. S/O Javaregowda Vs. Smt PadmA. W/O Late K.N. Ramachandra a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDERPetitioner has filed O.S No.885/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.,) Mysore, against the respondents. After completion of trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC to appoint a court commissioner for comparison of the signatures found in the Will/Ex.P- 3 and the agreement of sale/Ex.P-2 with the admitted signatures of K.N.Ramachandra found on the title deed dated 29.06.2005 and to give report thereon. Defendants have filed separate statement of objections. The trial court having considered the application and the objections thereto and the record of the suit, has passed an order of rejection. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition.2. Sri Sangamesh G. Patil, learned course! Appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the decision reported at AIR 1996 SC 1140 contends that, the trial court has not considered the application in the correct perspective and the impugned order is irrational & illegal and hence, interference i...
Manjunath S/O Hombegowda, Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed under section-482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set 3Side the order dated 4.11.2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC II Court, Hassan in P.C.R. No.174/09.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader, this matter is heard on merits.3. The primary facts of the case are as under: 3.1 Petitioner is Accused No.3 in Crime No.174/2009 of Hassan Rural Police Station. He was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2010 in Criminal Petition No.2867/2010. Thereafter petitioner moved a regular bail petition before the Court below and the Court below granted regular bail vide order dated 21.8.2010. 3.2 The order sheet of the Court below discloses that on 21.8.2010 the case was adjourned to 25.9.2010. On 25.9.2010, again the case was adjourned to 30.10.2010 since the Presiding Officer was on training. On 30.10.2010, the case was adjou...
Smt.Ramana Bai W/O Sri. SomappA. Vs. Sri G.B.R. Kesarkar.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure-D) passed on LA.No.10 by the Court of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.2. Sri G.Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner had made a limited and simple prayer that she be given one more opportunity to cross-examine PW1. As the serious disputes regarding the jural relationship are involved, unless the petitioner is given one more opportunity, she would be put to kiss and hardship, so contends Sri Suresh.3. My perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner's I.A.No.10 is turned down by the Court below far the following reasons:-a) The petitioner had made l.A.No.1 invoking Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 disputing the jural relationship. The same is dismissed on merits on 25.4.2009. This order has attained the finality, as the same is not challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court below feels that the petitioner cannot agitate the same issu...
Sri Arjun D Patre S/O Patre R Dayal Jand and Sri T S Pratap S/O T.V.Sg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDERSri S.Thejashwini. learned counsel for the petitioners, has filed a memo reading as under:Herewith respectfully submits as follows:This Hon'ble Court may be pleased permit the petitioners to withdraw the above petitioners with liberty to file fresh petitions on same cause of action, and requesting this Hon'ble Court dispensing with the payment of court Fee, because all petitioners already paid the court fee. Herewith respectfully pray that may he placed take this memo on record and pass the order on the basis of this memo, in the interest of justice and equity. And submits that the memo may be ordered.2. In the wake of like order passed by this court in WP Nos 11640-42 of 2010 and other related wilt petitions, the memo is ordered and WP Nos 22614-22622 of 2010 are dismissed with liberty to these petitioners to present fresh separate writ petitions, but court fee already paid herein is to be treated as court fee payable for the corresponding writ petitions of each of the petitioner...
Dr. a Ramani W/O K Rajendra Prasad. Vs. Dr. a Ramani W/O K Rajendra Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.3538/2004 against the respondent in the City Civil Court, Bangalore. An application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint a court commissioner to inspect and report regarding the violation of building plan of the first floor portion of the plaint schedule property and regarding the obstruction of air, light, ventilation and free movement in the ground floor of the plaint schedule property having been dismissed, plaintiff has filed this writ petition.2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record.3. The suit filed by the petitioner is for permanent injunction and to restrain the defendant from violating the terms of the sanctioned plan dated 10.02.2004 and for mandatory injunction for demolition of the structure, which obstructs the free flow of air, light, ventilation and movement in the ground floor portion. The respondent has filed O.S.No.15192/2004. The suits having been consolidated, trial has taken place. Af...
Vikram @ Vikki S/O.Govindraj. Vs. State by Chaimrajpet.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7 in Crime No.291/2O10 registered for offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC by Chamarajpet police. He in judicial custody.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is a student and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Counsel would submit that petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 150/ 2010.4. The learned Government Advocate would submit that, there is prima facie case against petitioner.5. The petitioner is a Pre University student of second year. He is not required for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, considering the nature of offences, age of petitioner and also having regard to the fact that petitioner is a student, I accept the petition.6. In the result, I pass the following order: Petition is accepted. Petitioner is released on bail, subject to following condition...
Anusha H and Hanumanthappa S/O Late Siddappa, Vs. N.Mahesh S/O C.Naray ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in the motor accident.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. The facts in brief are as follows :- The petitioner, who is a minor represented by her guardian, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of 5,00,000/-, in respect of the bodily injuries sustained by her in the motor accident, against the respondents.4. It is the case of the petitioner that, she was aged about 4V2 years and a student. On the date of the accident i.e. 9.3.2002 at about 1.00 p.m. while she was crossing the road in front of the vegetable shop, 5th cross, Gayathrinagar, Bangalore, the motor cycle bearing No.KA 01 L.233G ridden by its rider at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against her. On account of the impact, she sustained injuries on her leg which comprises of fractures. Ther...
Sri.Syed Abdul Majeed, S/O Jaleel Sabu and ors Vs. Sri.M.Raja, S/O Mun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking modification of the Judgment and Award dated 25.01.2006 passed by MACT, Bangalore, so as to fix the liability to pay the compensation on second respondent - Insurance Company.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Admittedly the appellants herein, who were the claimants in the Tribunal are the parents of deceased Ayub Pasha. U is the case of the claimants that on 21.06.2004 at about 3.00 p.m., their son, Ayub Pasha was travelling on a tractor sitting on its bumper near Thornahalli Village, coming within the limits of Malur Police Station. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said tractor, he fell down and came under the wheel of the said Tractor resulting in instantaneous death. Hence a Claim Petition was filed by them seeking compensation for the death of their son. The Tribunal while considering the same, has partly allowed the Claim Petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.2,67,000/- payable with interest at 6fo from the dat...
Abdul Jabbar and Rizwan Pasha S/O Abdul Jabbar and ors Vs. Samiya Anju ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Respondent/ plaintiff have filed O.S. 1459/06 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli, against Abdul Jabbar for a decree of maintenance and consequential reliefs. The defendant has filed written statement and has died. Plaintiff filed I.A.17 under 0 22 R 4 CPC to bring the petitioners herein on record as legal representatives of the defendant. Plaintiff filed I.A. 18 under O 38 R 5 CPC to attach the property mentioned in the schedule there under. The petitioners filed statement of objections to both the applications. The Trial Court has allowed I.As. 17 and 18. Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the defendant/ petitioners have filed these writ petitions.2. Sri Gururaj Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners would give up the challenge to the order passed on I.A.17, where by and where under, the legal representatives of the defendant were ordered to be brought on record. Learned counsel submits that, the order passed...
Sri Manjunatha Redely S/O,pappa Reddy Vs. the State of Kamataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.l in Crime No.53/2010 registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 114 r/w. 34 of IPC.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have been taken through investigation records.3. The investigation: records would reveal that there was a civil dispute between deceased Hanumantha Reddy and petitioner. On 30.5.2010, while deceased was proceeding towards his land on a bicycle, petitioner and other accused wrongfully restrained him. The petitioner repeatedly assaulted on the head of deceased with a chopper and caused his death. These facts are narrated in the statements given by the eye witnesses. The Post Mortem Examination Report reveals that deceased had suffered fatal injuries to his head and cause of death is shown as due to head injuries. There is prima facie case against petitioner. The occurrence had taken place in a bright day light, There are eye witnesses to the occurrence.4, c...