Karnataka Court April 2010 Judgments

Sri Lakshminarayana Hegde @ Narayana Hegde S/O. Subbaraya Hegde Vs. th ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2005 passed in MVC No. 5664/2002, on the file of III Addl. Judge & Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-18), Bangalore ('Tribunal' for short), awarding a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant claims to be aged about 28 years at the time of accident. He was a part-time lecturer in Sanskrit in two Colleges, drawing a salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident When things stood thus, on 28.10.2002 at 7.30 a.m., when he was going on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-32-H-7553 North to West, at chat time, a heavy goods vehicle (lorry) bearing Reg. No. HR-38-E-3484 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed ag...

Smt. Kantamma W/O Late Akkanna Reddy, Vs. Smt. Rajamma W/O Late Ponnus ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for reopening the plaintiff's evidence for recalling and for production of certain documents and also to examine one witness on the plaintiff's side is challenged is this writ petition.2. The plaintiff had examined herself and marked other documents. The defendants examined themselves. The two defendants and the legal representatives of the deceased firs defendant also adduced their evidence. At that stage the plaintiff - respondent herein filed an application under Section 151 CPC for reopening the case. The respondent herein also filed one more application under Order 7 Rule 14 seeking for permission to produce additional documents, seven in mumbers. As the plaintiff did not produce either the list of documents or the documents along with the application, the said application was dismissed. However, two other applications which were filed, one under Section 151 and t...

Vxl Instruments Limited Rep. by Kariappa, Manager, Hrd and Admin. Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondent and file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 15.03.2010. By the said order, the Joint Commissioner for Transport (Bangalore Urban and Rural), Bangalore, who is the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein for non-compliance of the interim order by which the Appellate Authority had directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax as demanded at 50% in cash and has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the balance of 50%.3. The petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that in fact the petitioner had sold the vehicle and one Sri Kandaswamy had purchased the same and has been operating. As such the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as demanded by the authorities. With regard to this aspect of the matter, at the outset,...

Sri Laxmana S/O Chennaraya Vs. the State of Karnataka by the Sub Inspe ...

Court: Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal by the sole accused in S.C. No. 78/2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 of IPC, and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.2. Appellant was chargesheeted by the Sub-Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Somwarpet, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC inter alia alleging that, on 25.11.2001 at about 8.00 p.m., near the Bore-well situated in T.M.C. Colony, Somwarpet, the accused for no reason picked-up quarrel with PW. 1 - Mahalingamma, W/o. Hanumantha and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to her by assaulting her with a club on the chest and on the head and kicked on her chest and thereby caused gr...

Sri B.M. Prakash Son of B.M. Munikrishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka by ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Sri S. Mahesh, learned Counsel accepts notice for respondent No. 4. Since the respondents are now served and the matter lies in a narrow compass, the petition itself is taken up for consideration with the consent of the learned Counsel and disposed of by this order.2. Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 24.03.2010 would contend that the said order on the face of it would indicate that the petitioner has not been given opportunity and an unilateral decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned senior counsel refers to the proviso to Section 42(10) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short the 'KMC Act') to point out that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner.3. In this regard, the decisions in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. reported in : AIR 1981 SC 136 and in the case of M. Puttaranganaika v. Director of Municipal Administ...

Sesa Goa Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing' for the parties wherein applications have been filed, for modification of the order dated 19.8.2009,2. These writ petitions are tiled challenging the notification dated 16.8.2008 amending Section 98-A of Karnataka Forest Act imposing Forest Development Tax. This Court, by order data 19.8.2009 after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties expressed that until a provision of Statute is held unconstitutional, the same is deemed to be valid in law and therefore enforceable and observed that no blanket stay can be granted and interim order was granted subject to the following conditions:i) The respondents are at liberty to levy Development Tax as proposed in the impugned notification.ii) However, the demand shall be restricted only to 50%. Forest Development Tax levied as an interim arrangement pending disposal of the writ petition.iii) This order shall haws effect from the dace of publication of notification.iv) The r...

Amzad Pasha S/O H.K. HussaIn Sab Vs. H.N. Lakshmana S/O Narasimhaiah, ...

Court: Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal by the complainant in C.C. No. 454/2004 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Malavalli, is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.2009 acquitting the respondent-accused of the charge levelled against him for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'].2. The appellant filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent - accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act inter alia contending that the respondent - accused as Proprietor of Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Finance Corporation, Halagur, approached the complainant for loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- and accordingly on 5.6.2004, the complainant paid Rs. 4,50,000/- to the accused as loan and subsequently for repayment of the said loan the accused issued post dated cheque dated 30.6.2004 for Rs. 4,50,000/- drawn on Mandya District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Halagur Branch and when the said cheque was pr...

Narayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ264

ORDERHvluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with.2. Petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to comply with the direction/order of the 2nd respondent by holding an enquiry in respect of the bogus Grant Certificate pertaining to Sy. No. 16 of the Volagerehalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.3. According to the petitioner, he and other poor persons constructed small houses by covering an area to the extent of 2 to 3 acres in the above said survey number with their family for several years. In view of the State Government inviting applications for regularisation of unauthorised occupancy, the petitioner and others submitted an application for the same. After submission of the said application by the petitioner and Ors. one class of persons who have not filed any application for regularisation, created bogus grant...

Doddegowda Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division and anr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ78

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent 1. Notice to respondent 2 is dispensed with.2. Petitioner is challenging the order of the Competent Authority/Assistant Commissioner, Mysore dated 19-7-2006 and also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, dated 21-8-2007 in confirming the said order as per Annexures-C and D respectively, in rejecting the Form 7-A filed by the petitioner in respect of the property in Sy. No. 43/3 measuring 3 acres and 22 guntas situated at Yelwal Kaval Village.3. Heard.4. According to the petitioner, petitioner's grandfather was cultivating the land in question under the 2nd respondent and after his death, petitioner's father and later petitioner himself continued the cultivation and possession of the property as a tenant. Thereafter, he purchased the said land during the year 1974 from the 2nd respondent, the then Maharaja of Mysore. He filed Form 7-A claiming occupancy rights, but the same was re...

Sri. V. Nanjappa S/O. Late R. Venkatappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Re ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. Petitioner contends that he is the owner of land in survey No. 35/7 and 35/8 situated at Nagavara village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North taluk.2. According to the petitioner the respondents acquired these lands and he questioned the same before this Court in W.P. No. 12105/1996. This Court vide order dated 18.02.1997 quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands involved in this case. Further a Division Bench in W.A. No. 2322/1997 and connected matters as per Annexure C and the Supreme Court in a S.L.P. as per Annexure D confirmed the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12105/1996. Pursuant to the orders of this Court and the Apex Court, the respondents have restored the possession of the lands in question to the petitioner as per order at Annexure H dated 25.03.2009. In the order at Annexure H the respondents have specifically stated that the names of the owners of the lands is to be restored to the position which was in the year 1984-...