Karnataka Court January 2011 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.
M Sharavana, S/O Late Murugan. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. by Rajajina ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Heard both .sides in respect of bail sough I by the petitioner who is said to be A-4 in Cr.No. 148/10 in respect of offences punishable under section 302, 201 r/w 149 of IPC.2. Petitioner's counsel submits that, even if the entire complaint allegations are taken into consideration along with other materials, the only role said to have been played by the said petitioner is said to be, he assisted in shifting the dead body of Vimal kumar into the car and except that, there are no allegations and the main accused are said to be A-1 to A-3 and A-5.3. Learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State submits that A-1 's daughter was married to the deceased. The accused therefore decided to take away the life of the deceased so that the property would come to A-l and A-2.4. Having thus heard both sides, it appears that, case against the petitioner may fall u/s 201 of IPC and therefore the petitioner can be released on bail by imposing conditions to safeguard the prosecution interest. However, ...
N.Natesh S/O AnnappA. Vs. Abdul Isak S/O Abdul Gaffar, and anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Snil.A.R.Sharadaniba. learned counsel for claimant and Sri M.S.Sriram. learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. From the medical records and medical evidence it is claimant had suffered following injuries:-I. Fracture of right upper incisorII. Swelling of right elbowIII. Multiple abrasions over right elbowThe claimant was treated in General Hospital at Channarayapatna Even after complete treatment, claimant has restricted movements of right elbow joint. PW2- Dr.Mahcsh.V. has assessed permanent physical disability of right upper limb at 30%.4. As could be seen from photograph marked as Ex.P.8, right elbow of claimant is in deformed state. The injury area is raw. It is probable that claimant has restricted movements of right elbow joint. Tine claimant was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist by occupation.5. Considering the avocation of claimant and nature of disabilities, perma...
Parameshwarappa S/O. SiddappA. Vs. H.S. Parvathappa S/O. P. Shivalinga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. The insurer has not disputed its liability. Hence, notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with.2. There is delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are tiled. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 24.08.2005. He had sought for compensation of Rs.5.00.000/ . However, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, has granted a global compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The claimant, being unsatisfied with the said award, has filed this appeal. No appeal is filed by the insurer.4. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injury in a road accident and the offending vrhicle was insured with the insurer. Ex.P.3 - wound certificate discloses four injuries, which are as under:1. Intraparechymal bleed in the right thalamaus2. Fracture anterior and pcsteno...
M/S. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. K. R. Sheela, W/O. La ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This appeal is by the insurer challenging quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: That on 26-11-07, when the deceased Madhusudan was driving tractor bearing registration No. KA-11-T-4083 and trailer bearing registration No KA-11-T-7565 on the left, side of Bangalore - Mysore road, towards Mandya, near Yeliyur circle, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-02-C-8588 carne in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. His mother filed a claim petition before the MACT. Bangalore, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/ . The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has a...
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka - by Prl. Secretory to ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Petitioner, a manufacturer of pesticides, is challenging the amendment brought in to the III Schedule of Entry 23 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. 2003 during 2008 permitting imposition of tax on insecticides that are used other than for agricultural purposes at 12.50% in stead of at 4%.2. According to the petitioner, he is a manufacturer of pesticides/ insecticides. The order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) 1, South Zone for passing of assessment / reassessment order in the case of the petitioner under S.39(l) of the VAT Act for the tax period from August 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to January 2010, is opposed to principles of natural justice since already the authority has determined that petitioner is liable to pay tax at higher rate of 12.5% on sale of household insecticides, pesticides and rodenticides.3. Heard the counsel representing the parties.4. It is the petition...
V. Narayanappa S/O VenkataramappA. Vs. Bangalore University, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Petitioner and respondent No.4 filed applications for being appointed as Lecturer In Telugu in Bangalore University in the year 1994. The said post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Lecturer in Telugu on adhoc basis on 21.3.1994 and consequently, the petitioner's prayer for appointment was respondent was specifically made subject to result of the Writ Petition No.7014/1994 as is clear from the document at Annexure-' H'. After the appointment of the 4th respondent, an additional prayer was sought for in Writ Petition No.7014/1994 praying for quashing the appointment of 4th respondent to the post of Lecturer. Ultimately, the Writ Petition No.7014/1994 was disposed of on 5th August 1994, by observing thus : " In the result, I allow this Writ Petition and direct Respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance the appointment given to the third respondent under Annexure ' K' till a full fledged enquiry is made into the question as to whether the third ...
Sri. Mallikeriyappa S/O. Late PuttappA. Vs. State of Karnataka Represe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.07.1981 and 18.06.1981 as per Annexures-C & D passed by the Land Tribunal. Sorab in Case No.TNC/VR/9/1974-75 & TNC/VR/1 1/1978 79.2. It is the ease of the petitioner that he made an application in Form No.7 for granting occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.Nio.6/1 of Soraba Taluk. The case was adjourned from time to time and on 01-07-1981 the petitioner was absent. Therefore the Tribunal holding that petitioner might not be interested in the land, rejected the application. However the same piece of land has been granted in favour of third respondent, as per Annexure-D. The Land Tribunal ought to have clubbed both the applications and passed a common order. The learned counsel relied upon ILR 2008 KAR 1481 and also 1971 KLJ 55 where it is held that rival application are to be clubbed and common order has to be passed and that all the members of the Tribunal have to sign the order.3. The learned Governmen...
Sri.Chandrashekar.M S/O Sri.M.Ramanjulu. Vs. Sri.Vijayakumar.M S/O Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. 1 have heard Sr; P..Krishna Reddy. learned counsel for claimant and Sri A.N.Krishna Swanry, learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. As per medical records and evidence of PW2-Dr.R.K.Sudhakantb, claimant had suffered following injuries:-I. Comminuted fracture of right femur n II. Fractures of right tibia and fibulaThe claimant was treated in Hosmat Hospital at Bangalore. The claimant underwent operations for reduction of fractures. As per averments of claim petition and salary slip produced by claimant, he was working as a Patrolling Supervisor in G4S Security Services (India) Pvt Ltd.. HAL II Stage. Bangalore. PW2 has deposed: after the accident, claimant has restricted movements of right lower limb. Pw2 has deposed that claimant has permanent physical disability of right lower- limb at 54% and 21% with reference to whole body. The Tribunal has held that claimant suffers from 17% permanent physical disability vis-a-vis ...
Smt.Shabeena W/O Late Ruhulla, and ors. Vs. Miss.Kalyani Kutti.P.V. an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. I have heard Sri N.Gopaiknshna. learned counsel for claimants and Sri K Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for Insurance Company.2. The appellants are the wife and children of K.M.Ruhulla (since deceased). The said K.M.Ruhulla met with a motor vehicle accident on 19.03.2007 and he had suffered fracture of posterior dislocation of right hip with displaced fracture of acetabulum and fracture of shaft of right femur. He was admitted in M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and treated as an inpatient, from 19.03.2007 to 28.04.2007. The fractures were reduced by open reduction and internal fixation. The deceased was discharged from hospital on 28.04.2007. The discharge summary would reveal that, on 28.04.2007. condition of K.M.Ruhulla (since deceased) w e-stable and satisfactory. The treatmerii of hactures was progressive. On 11.06.2007. K.M. Ruhulla had second admission to M.S.Ramaiah hospital for follow-up treatment. He was discharged on 15.06.2007. At toe time of discharge, his condition was satisfac...
Swathi Pinto W/O Stany Pinto. Vs. Stany Pinto S/O Late Bonaventure Pin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore, dt.20.4.2009 in M.C.No.52/2008.3. The Respondent husband filed a petition against the appellant for grant of decree of divorce u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, to dissolve the marriage solemnized between the parties on 18.4.2008 at St. Francis xavier Church, Bejai, Mangalore. The exparte decree has been passed by the court below on 20.4.2.009 on the ground that inspite of service of notice the appellant did not contest the case.4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.5. The main contention of the appellant before us is that immediately after receipt of notice from the court she engaged the service of an Advocate. The matter was posted for appearance of the appellant on 4.4.2009. Vakalath was given to Advocate before 4.4.2009. According to her, her Advocate could not appear before t...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »