Karnataka Court April 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.
Mr. T.C. Parameshwar S/O. Mr. Chikka Boraiha Vs. Smt. Poornima Naik W/ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. This brief facts of the case:On 07.12.2005, when the claimant was proceeding horn Kunjibetta to Udupi by walking on the left side of the road, a bus bearing registration No. KA-20 AA-8847 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Udupi seeking compensation of Rs. 6,54,650/-. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 73,450/- with interest at 8%p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only point that arises for my conside...
Smt. Mahalakshmi D/O Sri M.B. Srinivas and ors. Vs. Sri Rangaswamaiah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by. the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Doddaballapur in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for impleading them as additional defendants No. 9 to 22 in the suit.2. The plaintiff - respondent No. 1 herein filed the said application contending inter-alia that he had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and the proposed defendants whom he intended to bring on record were the tenants in occupation of the different items of the properties, subject matter of the partition suit.3. Plaintiff further urged that the first defendant Sri K.Y. Alli Rangappa, father of the plaintiff was collecting rents from the proposed defendants and utilised the same exclusively for himself and therefore he contended that it was just and necessary to implead the proposed defendants as the plaintiff intended to seek proper directions against them to deposit th...
Thimmegowda S/O. Nanjundegowda Vs. H.S. Basavaraju S/O. Hutchegowda an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case:On 09.06.2006, when the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in Hero Honda bearing registration No. KA-11-K-6567, met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Malavalli seeking compensation of Rs. 5,62,500/- The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 1,97,400/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal just and reasonable or does it call for enhancem...
Sri Thammaiah S. S/O Siddaiah, Rtd. Visl Employer Vs. Sri Raju S/O A.K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. The petitioner has celled in question the order dated 2.7.2008 passed in O.S. No. 145/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bhadravathi.2. The petitioner is a defendant. During the course of evidence, he sought to produce two documents dated 30.11.1996 and 17.10.2003. The trial Court, considering the nature of documents found that, one document is in the nature of agreement to deliver possession and called upon the petitioner to pay the stamp duty as well as penalty. As against the said order, this writ petition has been filed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits bat, both the documents do not relate to any agreement of sale between the parties.4. Article 5 Clause (e) of Schedule to Karnataka Stamp Act (for short 'the Act') requires duty to be paid only in case if there is an contract of sale and in part performance of such contract, if the party had been put in possession and if the said party (sic), the admission, such document in his eviden...
Sri Siraj Ahmed S/O Haji Md. Norulla, Prop Reliable Motor Service Repr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents 1 and 2 and file his memo of appearance within a period of four weeks. Considering the nature of the dispute, notice to respondent No. 3 is unnecessary.2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to consider the representation dated 23.2.2010 of the petitioner vide Annexure-E, for compliance of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 41739/2002 and 43360/2002 as well as the order passed in Review Petition Nos. 296-331/2001 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal.3. The petitioner contends that at an earlier point of time, when a fresh grant of permit was made in favour of the third respondent, the petitioner had called in question the same in RP 296-331/2001. The Tribunal after setting aside the same had remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Davanagere for reconsideration. Though the third respondent ...
Sri K. Kumar S/O. Sri. Kempe Gowda Vs. Sri L. Balaraju,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
N.K. Patil, J.1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned common judgment and award dated 13.12.2004 passed in MVC No. 4434/01 on the file of the IX Addl. Judge, Member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. SCCH No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgement and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its payment as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement, on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant claims to be aged about 27 years, a tailor by profession, earning more than Rs. 5,000/- p.m. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He contended that at a...
Sri M.R. Rajath S/O M. Ramachandra Vs. Sri Rajagopal S/O K. Narasimaia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.2008 passed on I.A. No. 24 in O.S. No. 125/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Doddaballapur.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He has filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properly and for declaration that judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 41/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Doddaballapur is not binding and for permanent injunction.3. In the said suit, the defendant got a document named as 'agreement of sale' marked in his evidence as Ex.D-1 dated 4.11.2002. It is thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (in short 'the Act') requesting the Court for impounding the agreement of sale produced by the defendant The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application holding that the document produced by the defendant is not an instrument which come...
Ladies Touch a Proprietory Concern Rep. by Its Proprietrix, Shama Arez ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, rejecting the applications filed under Order XVIII Rule 7 CPC and under Section 151 CPC, praying to re open the trial and recall PW-1 for further cross-examination.2. Petitioner herein is the defendant before the Trial Court. The suit is filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking mandatory injunction for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was inducted into the suit schedule premises as a licensee. The evidence of the parties was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, on an earlier occasion an application was made for recalling PW-1 for cross- examination. An application was also filed under Order XI Rule 14 seeking a direction to the plaintiff to produce the sanctioned plan of the schedule property. The said application was allowed or. 21.06.2008. The plaintiff, pursuant to the ...
Pradeep S/O. B.R. Krishnamurthy Vs. the Branch Manager, the New India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. It is admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the tribunal.4. The brief facts of the case:On 23.02.2008, when the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing No. KA 41 H-695 near 14th main road Attiguppe, Bangalore, a Tata 407 bearing registration No. KA 05 D-1357 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident and the liability of the Insurance Company, the onl...
Smt. Damegunta Rajeshwaramma W/O Shankar Reddy and Smt. Kondabujjamma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This is defendants' petition, questioning the order dated 4th May 2007 on objections regarding payment of court fees in O.S. No. 3649/2007 pending on the file of XXIV Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.2. Respondents are plaintiffs. They have brought a suit for declaration of title to the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and further declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.11.2000 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of 'B' schedule property as null and void, not binding on the plaintiffs and other reliefs.3. Initially the suit was valued under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and fees of Rs. 57,860/- was paid. As regards to the decree for injunction, the court fee was determined under Section 26(c) of the Act. The office raised an objection as regard to the valuation of the property. Thereafter, plaintiffs were called up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »