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.
Smt. Tarakeshwari, Vs. Sri M.S.Ramaraju, S/O. Late M.S.Raju, and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only grievance in this petition is, I.A.9 filed in the Trial Court under 0.1 R.10 (2) CPC by the petitioner herein has not been considered and without considering the said application, the Trial Court has posted the case for orders on the application filed under S.144 CPC by the defendant/tenant.2. Learned counsel on both sides has no objection for the Trial Court to consider I.A.9 filed by the Petitioner. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the Trial Court is directed to consider I.A.9 on its merit and in accordance with law and pass order thereon. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly....
Sri Anil G Bajaj S/O G.R. Bajaj and anr Vs. the Authorised Officer Vij ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 14 of the SI'FAESI Act on the ground that the 2nd respondent is not competent to pass an order under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the petition schedule premises.2. Counsel appearing for respondents would submit that in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the matter of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others reported III (2010) BC 495 (SC) in respect of the order passed under SRFAESI Act there is remedy available to the parties to approach DRT under Section 20 of the Act to seek redressed of the same.3. In view of the submission of counsel, for respondents and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court this Court holds that this petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to approach DRT within 15 days from the date of securing certified copy of this order. In the said proceedings, i...
Sri B.Jayakumar, Son of Late B.Beerappa Vs. Dr. P.Nagendra, Son of Dr. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Undisputedly, there is a Joint Development Agreement between the petitioner and respondent in respect of the property bearing CITB No. 261/B, in Ward No.50, Jayanagar, 2rd Block, Ashoka Pillar, and Bangalore. The said agreement was entered into on 9.10.2005 and has been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10.10.2005. The agreement provides for resolution of disputes, if any, by having recourse to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966.2. Dispute having arisen, the respondent/plaintiff instituted O.S.7403/2006 against the petitioner/defendant. The defendant filed written statement and I.A.4 under 0.7 R.ll CPC to reject the plaint, on the ground that, the agreement provides for resolution of disputes by having recourse to arbitration. The Trial Court has rejected I.A.4. However, it has referred the dispute to the Arbitrator as per CI.1.33 of Joint Development Agreement dated 9.10.2005. Said order has been questioned by the defendant by filing th...
S.Vanajakshi, W/O Shankar H.G. Vs. Smt Indira W/O Devendra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.7.2009 in O.S.No.40/2008 passed by the II Addl.Civil Judge (JD) at Hassan allowing I.A.No 13 as per Annexure-G permitting the respondent to complete the construction on the land in possession of respondent.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant before the Trial Court in O.S.No.40/2008. In this order for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.40/2008 against the defendant for a decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Plaintiff contends that she is the owner of plaint 'A' schedule property. It is further contended that the defendant is the owner of plaint 'B' schedule property. Plaint 'C schedule property is the overlapping portion of plaint 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.2 for grant of tempora...
The Management of Saravana Alloy Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Sri B.G. Ramachan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. W.A.No.3295/2009 is filed by the respondent-Management in W.P.No. 1964/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-2009 wherein the learned Single Judge has modified the award passed by the I Addl.Labour Court in l.D.No. 171/1993 dated 29-11-2007 and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and payment of 40% of back wages.2 W.A.No.3637/2009 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No. 1964/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-2009 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has reduced the quantum of back wages awarded by the Labor Court from 50% to 40%.3. Both the appeals have been clubbed and when the matter was posted on the last occasion, it was submitted that there is possibility of settlement. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted that the parties have entered into a settlement and a joint memo is filed averring that the workman - respondent in W.A.No.3295/2009 and appellant in W.A.No.3637/2009 has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.94....
Smt. Rukmaya Poojary, Vs. Sri. Sandeep Shetty, S/O. Ramakrishna Shetty ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.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.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 12.04.2007 when the claimant was proceeding as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/V-8411 from Polali temple side towards B.C. road side near Polali Rajarajeshwari temple Dwara in Kariyangala Village, Bantwal Taluk a bus bearing registration No. KA-19/6169 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle as a result the claimant fell down and sustained injury Hence he filed a claim petition before MAOT, D.K. Mangalore seeking compensation of 10,00000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.75.700/- with interest at 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of the ...
M/S. Bata India Limited and ors Vs. Ms H Savithri W/O Padama and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and arc disposed of by this common order.2. The lis brought before this Court is fully covered by a decision in M/S. BATA INDIA LIMITED REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT vs. KANIKRAJ and therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. Petitions are accordingly dismissed.3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application is pending before the Apex Court to recall the order dated 18.10.2010 in Special II.R 2010 KAR 1403 Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21879/2009, I am afraid, that contention does not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner. I must say so because, order dated 18.10.2010 of the Apex Court reads thus:"At the first stage some other counsel had appeared and had requested us to pass over the matter but on second call, no one appears for the petitioner.On 24th August, 2009 ...
The Regional Transport Officer Udupi and the Deputy Commissioner Vs. T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
JUDGMEN T1. This appeal is filed by the Government.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent financier of the vehicle sought for exemption from payment of tax on the ground of non-use of the vehicle in question by filing an application under form no.30 under Rule 34-A of the KMVT Rules, 1957. A provisional exemption was given subject to the conditions mentioned in the Government notification dated 11.9.1980 bearing No. HTD.95.TMT. 77(11).3. Subsequently, when the inspector of motor vehicles inspected the declared place of vehicle on 28.2.2003 the vehicle was not found at the declared place, i.e. the garage. Therefore, show cause notice curie to be issued on 26.4.2003 calling upon the respondent financier to show cause why tax should not be levied w.e.f. 1.6.1995. Subsequently, second show cause notice was issued on 27.1.2005 and a reply was sent on 12.5.2005. The 1sl appellant herein directed the respondent to pay tax for the period between 1.7.1995 to 30.6.1995 by its order dated 31...
Patric Domnic Rozario S/O Vincent Rozario Vs. Capt. V P Sadashiva S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This is an appeal filed under Sec 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 17/7/2003 made in MVC No. 81/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Virajpet.2. There is no representation for the appellant. The appellant is respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle namely Lorry bearing registration No. CNX-5189, in the claim petition.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the Sling of the appeal is as under:The respondent No.1 herein filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of MV Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,19,720/- from the driver and owner of the terry towards personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 6/5/ 1999. It is stated that due to rash and negligent drudge of the lorry by respondent No. 1, it came and dashed against the motor cycle bearing No. RJ-19-6-M-8333 driven by the respondent No.1 along with his wife an a pillion rider and the claimant BUB twined grievous injuries in the motor acciden...
Sri Krishnappa S/O Late Byrappa Vs. Sri M B Ramakrishnaiah S/O M. Deva ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The 1st respondenv-M.B.Ramakrishnaiah, has filed O.S.No.3644/2008 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the 2r,d respondent-Smt.Sarojarnma, for the relief of specific performance of a contract under an alleged agreement of sale dated 30.07.1996 and for consequential reliefs. The petitioners filed I.A No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to permit them to come on record of the suit as defendants 2 & 3. The same was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved, the applicants in I.As No.2 & 3 have filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 12.01.2010 and to allow I.A No.2.2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the writ petition record. The point for consideration is, whether the impugned order is sustainable?3. First and foremost, the impugned order is neither a considered nor a reasoned order. The trial court while passing the impugned order, has not even adverted to the case of the applicants' vis-a-vis, the proceedings of the suit and has passed the impugned order by merely observ...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »