Karnataka Court April 2010 Judgments

Sri Laxman @ Kannan S/O. Laxman Vs. Sri R. Ten Singh S/O. B. Ram Singh ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.10.04 passed in MVC No. 5201/03 on the file of the XVI Addl. Judge, Court Of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bangalore, (SCCH-14) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,500/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant is claiming that he is aged about 50 years at the time of accident and Tailor by profession. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is the further case of the appellant that, at about 4.00 p.m., on 1.9.2003 when he was standing in front of Shilpa Hotel in Bangalore City near Bowring Hospital, at that time, the driver of the Scooter bear...

B.M. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ282

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Sri S. Mahesh, learned Counsel accepts notice for respondent 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 24-3-2010 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 'KM 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. : AIR 1981 SC 136 : (1980)4 SCC 379 and in the case of M. Puttaranganaika v. Director of Municipal Adminis...

D.B. Siddalingaiah Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ74

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The complainant is before this Court in appeal aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the XVI Additional CMM, Bangalore in CC No. 35096 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint against the respondent/accused alleging the during the second week of January 2001, the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs from him and towards discharge of the same, had issued a cheque dated 1-6-2001 drawn on Central Bank of India, Bangalore. On presentation of the same through his banker, the cheque was returned back with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the amount. The notice was received by the accused and she also replied to the said notice on 27-6-2001 through her Advocate denying any such debt. However, since the accused did not pay back the amount, private complaint came to be filed for the...

Nithash Damodhar Khundur D/O Late Damodhar Khundur W/O Sudhir Shreyan, ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 182 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have south for setting aside of the order dated 07.11 2008 passed in C.C. No. 4942/2008 by the leaned Addl. Civil judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC. Udupi directing registration of Criminal ease against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 365, 342, 504, 506 and 384 read with Section 149 of IPC.2. Though this matter is listed today for admission, having regard to the nature of the relief south for in this petition. It is taken for final disposal and arguments of Sri Shivanagowda Doddamani, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, the learned HCGP are heard. Perused the charge sheet filed against the petitioners by the police concerned, the statements of CWs. 1, 2, 5 to 8 and other material placed on record by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.3. Stated in brief the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the complaint filed by CW1 Smt. Latha, the...

Smt. Muniyamma, W/O. Late Chikkananingappa Vs. Sri Basayya Gurusiddaia ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 23rd December 2004, passed in M.V.C. No. 2150/2003 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3) (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 66,000/- with 6% interest, awarded in her favour as against her claim for Rs. 04.00 Lakhs, is inadequate.2. The appellant claims to be aged about 60 years and working as coolie, earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. She was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The case of the appellant is that, at about 3.00 P.M., on 10-01-2003, when she was returning from Anekal with her daughter, after purchasing grocery items, near Shanimahatma Temple, an Auto bearing No. KA-05/A-3895 came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. As a result of the same, she sustained fracture of left femur and other injuries. S...

Ashu Products Represented by Its Proprietor AshwIn K. Sood Vs. Secreta ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant before the Court was the applicant before the E.S.I. Court in E.S.I. Application No. 187/88 and the challenge to the show cause notice issued by the respondents. E.S.I. Corporation dated 17.3.1988 claiming contribution from the appellant in a sum of Rs. 7,656/- for the wage period from 1.4.1987 to 30.9.1987, was turned down by the E.S.I. Court by dismissing the application filed under Section 75(1)(g) of the E.S.I. Act.2. Sri D.R. Ravi Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Lex Nexus for the appellant argued that the impugned order of the E.S.I. Court cannot be sustained in law because, as on the date of issuance of the ratification covering the appellant's establishment, i.e., on 1.4.1987, there were less than 20 employees employed by the appellant and therefore the E.S.I. Court could not have dismissed the application filed. Secondly, it is argued that the clubbing of the appellant's establishment, viz., M/s. Ashu Products with M/s. Ashu Fi...

Sureshchandra Mehta Vs. the Additional Tahsildar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ268

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 9-3-2009 -Annexure-F in proceedings RRT No. 118 of 2008-09 and for a direction to the respondent to enter his name in the RTC/pahani of Sy. No. 200, Block 19 situate a Marenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the land in Block 19 in Sy. No. 200 form one Ramaiah and also made an application for change of entries in the RTC/pahani. Since no action was taken, petitioner filed W.P. No. 10979 of 2008. This Court by order dated 20-11-2008, granted three months time to the respondents to take necessary action. However, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.3. Heard the Counsel representing the parties.4. Sri P. Mahale, Senior Counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contended that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.N. Venkateshaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : 2005(6) Kar. L.J. 452 (DB) : IL...

Sri Chandrashekar S/O Late Chinnappa Vs. the Additional Land Acquisiti ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 23.3.2010 as pi Annexure-D issued by the first respondent and the same reads as under:NOTICESub: Property in Sy. No. 31/1 of Devasandra VillageThis has reference to order mid judgment dt: 15/11/2002 passed by the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 4765/97 the operative portion of which is extracted below.The defendant is hereby perpetually restrained from obstructing the plaintiff in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.It is further ordered and decreed that, the defendant is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law.In pursuance of the judgment dt: 15/11/2002 this Authority is holding and enquiry and Spot inspection on 06/04/2010 you are called upon to he present with all the documents on which you intend to rely on in order to complete the enquiry.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends t...

Sri Sureshchandra Mehta S/O Chimanlal Vs. Additional Tahsildar

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 9.3.2009 - annexure F in proceedings RRT 118/2008-09 and for a direction to the respondent to enter his name in the RTC/Pahani of Sy. No. 200, Block 19 situate a Marenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the land in Block 19 in Sy. No. 200 from one Ramaiah and also made an application for change of entries in the RTC/pahani. Since no action was taken, petitioner filed WP 10979/2008. This Court by order dated 20.11.2008, granted three months time to the respondents to take necessary action. However, the application of the petitioner came lobe rejected. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard the counsel representing the parties.4. Sri P. Mahale, Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contended that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.N. Venkateshaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : ILR 2005 KAR 5084 has held that the Tahsildar wou...

Sri R. Govinda Reddy @ K.R. Govinda Reddy S/O Ramareddy, Member, Gram ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is calling in question the notification dated 18.01.2010, which is impugned at Annexure-B to the petition.2. By the said notification, out of two seats which is available for Lingavarahatti, one seat has been assigned to Schedule Tribe while the other is assigned to backward class 'A'. The petitioner contends that the said reservation is not in conformity with the rotation prescribed. It is contended that even in the earlier election in the year 2005, one seat had been assigned to backward class 'A' and therefore, there is repetition. It is therefore contended that the one seat ought to have been assigned either to back ward class 'B' to the general category or any other category instead of repeating the same to backward class 'A'. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for interference with the said notification.3. The learned Government Advocate by placing reliance on the objection statement would point out that in the earlier elections for the year 20...