Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. by Its Divisional Manager ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. That, on 13.12.2006 when N.M. Rajaprakash (petitioner) was a pedestrian crossing Infantry Road, Bangalore, a ford car bearing registration No. KA-01-B-528 driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed against him and as a result he sustained injuries such as Type-I compound fracture of both bones of right forearm and multiple abrasions.2. The offending car belonged to one A. Somaiah (insured/owner). The car was insured with Bajaj Ailianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer). On being informed of the accident, the Cubbon Park police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle - S.K. Shivanna Gowda (driver) for offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 I.P.C. and prosecuted him.3. A claim petition was filed in the MACT under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the owner and insurer of the offending car, for awarding n compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The owner of the car did not appear and was ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Now Reptd. by Its Divisional Manager, New ...

Court: Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.1. Notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 17.10.2006, passed by the MACT, Tumkur, in MVC No. 790/1999.3. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. front the date of petition till the date of realisation.4. Aggrieved by that, the appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal, questioning the quantum.5. In brief, the fuels are that on 22.8.1099, at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Manu was standing on the footpath, on NH.4, along with his cycle near bus stand. At that time, the lorry bearing No. MWK 152 came at hig speed and dashed against the deceased Manu and also the cycle. As a result of that, the deceased Manu sustained injuries and succumbed of the same. The first respondent, who is the mother of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. fr...

National Insurance Company Limited, Direct Agent Branch-iii, Through I ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. One Armugam, aged about 65 years sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 26.05.2001 while riding Kinetic Honda, to which another vehicle - Kinetic Honda No. KA-G3-ED/9577 belonging to respondent dashed. After taking the treatment for the accidental injuries, Armugam died on 9.9.2001. His wife and son filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer i.e., the appellant. Insurer filed statement of objections opposing the claim petition, inter alia contending that, there is no nexus between the death of Armugam and the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the issuance of policy and its validity as on the date of accident were not disputed. Based on the material pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. 2nd petitioner deposed as PW. 1. Dr. Rajesh Gangavatiker, who treated Sri Armugam deposed as PW. 2 and one Thanappa, an employee of the Nimhans hospital deposed ...

Shri Sugnanachari S/O Mallachari Vs. Shri Basappa S/O Mahadevappa and ...

Court: Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court in a suit, whore the plaintiffs were claiming injunctory reliefs, on the footing that the appellant herein was interfering with the use of a road measuring about 9 guntas on the eastern side, which did not belong to the defendant. However, it was the defendant's case that the land was granted to him to the extent of 2 acres 29 guntas and that the suit property formed part of the same. However, it has been elicited in the course of evidence that occupancy certificate, in favour of the defendant - appellant was only to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and though, he has made an application seeking rectification of the occupancy certificate to incorporate to the extent as 2 acres 29 guntas, the same is said to be pending. However, on findings of fact, it was held that the plaintiffs had established a case for injunction and it was accordingly granted. This has been confirmed ...

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep by Its the Dep ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. These two appeals are taken up together for disposal in view of the common ground urged by the learned Counsel for the parties concerning rate of interest.2. It is not in dispute that the respective claimants were the L.Rs of the deceased employee and the accident also occurred arising out of and in the course of employment. Even though, the income take by the Commissioner is sought to be reduced in the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, yet in view of the reason given by the Commissioner for taking the said income, I do not see any necessity to interfere with the quantum of compensation. However, only the interest part of the order requires modification and in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717, the interest payable is at 7 1/2% from the date of application till the date of the order of the Commissions and thereafter @ 12% till payment is made. Amount in deposi...

The Member Secretary Common Cadre Committee for Pca and Rd Bank Vs. Sr ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The cause shown to condone the delay in filing the Review Petition is not satisfactory, hence the delay is not condoned and the application is accordingly rejected.2. Having had a glimpse at the grounds set out in the Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 23rd November 2009 in Writ Petition Nos. 23263-66 of 2009 on the premise that the first respondent in the Review Petition who is none other than the fourth petitioner in the Writ Petition having retired from service on 30.04.1995 the decision of Full Bench in N.S. Srinivasamurthy and Ors. v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and Ors. ILR 2003 KAR 458 has no application inasmuch as Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was not applicable to the Co-operative establishments on the date of retirement of the first respondent cannot be countenanced. The Payment of Gratuity Act was applicable to the Co-operative establishments as held by the full bench and therefore it is too farfetched for t...

Smt. H.S. Swarnalatha W/O Late Sreedhar, Vs. the Vice Chairman and Man ...

Court: Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 5.9.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and MACT, Tumkur in MVC. No. 745/2000.2. The appellants as wife and children of deceased Sreedhar filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 26,01,980/- for the death of said Sreedhar in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 00.30 hours in the intervening night of 6/7.2.2000. According to the case of the claimants, in the night of 6.2.2000 deceased Sreedhar boarded the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-22F-833 to go to Mangalore. While the bus was proceeding on Kushalnagar-Madikere Section of the National Highway, at about 00.30 hours on 7.2.2000 near Madapatna Village, the bus collided with an ongoing Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No. KA-12-5-370 as a result of which the deceased who was sitting i...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Now Represented by Divisional Offi ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Two applications, Misc. Cvl. 11793/09 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC seeking for impleading one D.D. Paramesh S/o Devegowda, Coffee Planter, Kanchinakaldurga, Doddamagaravalli, Aldur Post, Chikkamagalur Taluk, as additional respondent No. 6 to this appeal and Misc. Cvl. 11793/09 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking for production of certain additional evidence in the above appeal and supported by affidavits sworn to by the fifth respondent in this appeal by name K.R.Chandrashekar who is also the applicant in these applications, are listed before the Court for orders.2. Applications figuring in an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant - United India Insurance Company Limited and directed against the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge and MACT, Chikmagalur in MVC. No. 478/2000 inter alia for questioning the liability on the part of the appellant - ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Sri. U. Manohar Rao

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 14.03.2005 passed in ITA No. 343/Bang/2003 by the Appellate Tribunal raising following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act is liable to be cancelled by accepting the reasonable cause assigned by the assessee that he was not able to pay advance taxes without taking into account that, fact that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/- out of the sale proceeds and an advance of Rs. 9.00,000/- during the said assessment year.(2) Whether the Tribunal, should have recorded its finding by examining the merits of the explanation before accepting the same and therefore recorded a perverse finding.(3) Whether the Tribunal should have taken into consideration that the assessee had not assigned any explanation for belated filing of the return of income and explanation offered was only for the purpose of belated p...

S.V. Revanaradhya Vs. Sri. Jagadish Mallikarjunaiah Chakrabhavi.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3774

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4387/2005 dated 21.8.2009 on the file of the 44,h Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The appellant was the defendant iti the suit and the respondent was the plaintiff, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and for certain other reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is employed at United State of America. As such, he has executed a power of attorney dated 4.2.2004 in favour of his father C.M.Mallikarjunaiah. Acting on the said power of attorney, C.M.Maliikarjunaiah purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant, for and on behalf of the plaintiff by a deed of sale dated 20.7.2004. On the same day, the plaintiff took the possession of the suit schedule property through his attorney. On 3C.07.2004, Bangalore Mahanag...