Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments
Sri. Mahadevaswamy S/O Puttaraju. Vs. Smt.S.Bhaggavati, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the counsel, appeal is taken up for final disposal.2 This is a claimant's appeal seeking enhancement. The claimant has suffered fracture of middle third of Right Femur, multiple fresh small abrasions over the right leg. The claimant-appellant was hospitalized from 6.1 1.2001 to 21.1 1.2001. He was operated on 8.11.2001. The claimant-appellant was working as a computer operator and the monthly income being Rs.3.000/- p.m. The Doctor who treated him was examined as PW2 and he has opined that the p. disability factor in respect of right lower limb is between 45% to 50% and that of the whole body between 20% to 25%. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, the duration of hospitalization a total sum of Rs.69.600/- is awarded as compensation3. Mr.K.N.Harish Babu, learned counsel appearing for the claimant appellant submits that having regard to the nature of injuries and also the income of the claimant-appe...
Tag this Judgment!B.Shekar Shetty S/O Eshwara Shetty. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12221/2004 being aggrieved by the- order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned Single -Judge confirming the order passed by the land Tribunal, the present writ appeal is filed.2. The appellant filed an application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Survey No.6-17C measuring 1 acre of land situated at Badaga Mijar Village. Mangalore Taluk. The appellant has contended that he has been in possession and cultivating the land from the year 1968 and he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights. The land Tribunal by its order dated 20.10.1981 granted occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. Being aggrieved by the same, Smt.Sesi Shedhi the mother of respondents No.3(a) to 3(d) filed Writ Petition No.21024/1982 challenging the same before this Court.3. This Court by its order dated 31.3.1983 quashed the order dated 20.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Suneesh Kumar JaIn S/O Late Danya Kumar, and anr. Vs. the State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Heard learned counsel Sri. S.G. Bhagavan for the petitioners and Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State in respect of the bail sought by the petitioners who are accused of having committed the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the deceased Vishwanath was found near the hotel of CW-2 on 28.7.10 at about 4.55 p.m. and he was assaulted by some unknown persons with talwar and thereafter the accused escaped in a Maruthi Omni bearing No.KA-12 M 2050. The motive for the incident is said to be previous enmity between the accused persons and deceased over murder of A 1 's father many years ago.3. Submission of petitioners counsel is that, except the voluntary statement of the accused and the arrest that had preceded to it there is no other material and even the arrest has not been conducted in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C. as it is unlikely that the petitioners could have been arrested at Belthangad...
Tag this Judgment!H Kallanna S/O HalappA. Vs. Sanna Hanumanthappa, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Though this petition is listed tor orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by (his order.2. The rejection of petitioner's l.A.No.2 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead him as party/defendant in O.S.240/09 by order dt. 28/1/2010 of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Channagiri, is called in question in this petition.3. In the suit instituted by the 3th and 4th respondents, the petitioner filed l.A.No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead him as a party/defendant, alleging that an extent of 2.13 acres in Sy.No.6/2B of Mallapura Village and land measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.6/6Cl. as also land measuring 2.28 acres in Sy.No. .14 of Avalagatta Village, being the self acquired properties of the 1sl respondent was agreed to be sold in his favour under an agreement to sell dt. 30/3/1987 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2.00.000/- and the petitioner being a lecturer carrying on teaching piofession unable to look after the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. R.Girish Aradhya S/O S.R.Aradhya, and anr. Vs. Smt. Sureka W/O R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. M.F.A.No. 144/2010 is filed by the husband challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the III Addl. Family Judge, Bangalore, dated 21st November 2009 in M.C.No. 110/2004 Hied under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Similarly M.F.A.No. 145/2010 is filed by the very same appellant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, in G & WC No. 76/2004 dated 21st November 2009, wherein he sought for custody of his minor son Chiranth from respondent/wife. Since the parties in the appeals are one and the same, and as the subject matter of both the appeals are in respect of matrimonial dispute and custody of a child, these appeals are taken up together with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. It is the ease of the appellant/husband that he married the respondent on 15.3.99 and that out of their wedlock, they have a child by name Chiranth and from the day one of the marriage, the r...
Tag this Judgment!Sri V. R. Jagadeesan S/O. Late P. V. Raghavan. Vs. Sri J. Balaraj S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Though this petition is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.2. The rejection of petitioner's I.A.No.6 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement to add paragraph 16(a). by order dt. 30/11/2010 of the 43rd Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore, in O.S.6253/06, is called in question in this petition.3. in the suit instituted by the respondent for removal of the encroachment by the petitioner/defendant and for permanent injunction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement to add paragraph 16(a) contending that the defendant/petitioner has not. encroached upon the suit schedule premises to an extent of 3 feet on the northern portion of the plaintiff s site No.43 and that the alleged rough sketch produced by the plaintiff is false and concocted and further that on the western side of the petitioner's premises there is a drainage (gutter) which run...
Tag this Judgment!Texport Syndicate (India) Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary, Govt of India Mini ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Petitioner has sought for quashing annexure K passed by the Assessing Authority under S.35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as illegal and contrary to Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with notification dated 26.6.2001 and S.11 B of I he Central Excise Act and to hold that the petitioner is entitled to rebate of duty.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments falling within Entry 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. As per Rule IX of the Rules, petitioner is entitled to claim abate of the duly paid on export of readymade garments from India. It is stated, petitioner has exported finished products for the period from 5.7.2004 to 20.9.2004 after paying duly, and he is entitled to rebate in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules. However, the Department issued a show cause notice holding that petitioner has violated die conditions of notification under Rule 19. But. according to the petitioner, there is no such violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Edward P.D.Lewis, S/O Late Victor Lewis. Vs. the Deputy Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to Annexure-F notice issued by respondent No.2-Bank proposing to exercise powers conferred under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). Challenge is also made to the order dated 16.07.2010 vide Annexure-H passed by the District Magistrate. Mangalore extending police protection for taking over possession of the property in question.2. Several contentions are urged by the petitioner in support of the relief sought. It is unnecessary to examine the contentions on merits as the Counsel for the respondent has by taking me through the statement of objections, particularly paragraph 8 thereof contends that the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act in A.S.A.No.709/2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, and has obtained an interim order of stay of the sale of the schedule properly, on...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Chandrika, W/O Puttaswamachar, and ors. Vs. State by Nazarbad Poli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. Both these petitions arise out of one and the same complaint said to have been lodged by one Komala on 30.11.10 alleging commission of offence under sections 406. 420 and 34 of IPC by the petitioners.2. The gist of the, complaint is that the petitioners were engaged in running the chit fund and though had collected the amount from 50 members through the complainant, but did not give the amount to the concerned members on the dates when the chits were drawn.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. D.L.Jagadeesh submits that, in the complaint filed, no amount has been mentioned and the complainant was only an agent and even according to her. no complain! has been lodged by any of the members to the effect that, they have been deceived by the petitioner and moreover, the complaint is dated 30.11.10. whereas the FIR is dated 27/11/10 and this also gives rise to doubt the very prosecution case. Under these circumstances, the petitioner being a woman, be granted anticipatory- bail by im...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited. Vs. Smt.Aparna V Gowda W /O S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The insurer is in appeal questioning the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on them. The primary contention of the insurer is that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in goods vehicle. Hence in the circumstances, the question of insurer answering the claim of the claimants does not arise. Indeed, in support of such contention we find that there is no substantial evidence except for making such a statement in the statement of objections. The matter arises in the following manner:2. The claimants are the widow and children of the deceased. On 17.10.2003 the husband of the first claimant was travelling in a canter as a labourer. At about 2 00.p.m.. the respondent No.5 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and met with an accident. The husband of the first claimant died on the spot. The other persons who were travelling also sustained minor injuries. The deceased was earning a p sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m. out of his agricult...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »