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.
Sri Sanjeev Goel, S/O Late M.S. Goel. Vs. M/S. Padmini Creations.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Court of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-6) in O.S.No.3947/06.2. Full advertence to the facts of the case may not be necessary. In the suit for injunction simplicitor filed by the respondent - plaintiff, the Trial Court framed the following issues based on the rival pleadings:1. Does plaintiff prove that he and defendant's fattier Goei were running business under the name and style of "Agarwais" in partnership in Shop No. 26, 1 floor, Public Utility Building, M.G. Road, Bangalore, till 12.3.2004?2. Does plaintiff prove that upon dissolution of partnership said M.S.Goel sworn to an affidavit that he has no objection for the transfer of lease hold right in respect of suit shop in favour of plaintiff?3. Did plaintiff continue to carry on business in suit property on payment charges to the corporation and by changing the name of business from "Agarwais" to "M/s.Padmin...
Y. Annaji Rao S/O Late Capt. Y.S. Sastry. Vs. the University of Agricu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Petitioner has sought for the following relief:- "Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 not to consider the period from 17.5.2002 to 10,7.2003 and also the further period from 11.7.2003 to 25.2.2004, which is the date of retirement, as dies non period and to dear and settle all the retirement benefits of the petitioner, by re-calculating all the retirement benefitsand further to refund the excess rent amount deducted as penal rent from the salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.52,535/-"2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant in the first respondent-University on 16.8.1969. He was appointed as Assistant Professor of Dairy (Extension), Raichur, on 2.6.1984 and reported for duty on 29.6.1984. Later, he was promoted as Associate professor of Daily (Extension), Mandya, W.E.F. 19.1.1988. Further, the effective date of his promotion as Associate Professor of Dairy (Extension) was revised to 1.7.1985. Petitioner was deputed to Veterinary College,...
Sri a Ganesh Shetty S/O Sri M Vittal Shetty. Vs. the State of Karnaiak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Joint statement of objections has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. The same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. A perusal of the statement made in para 2 thereof reveals that 23 persons have put up unauthorized structures within the road margin, where they are carrying on their business activity.3. It is asserted by the respondents in their statement of objections that notices dated 20.1.2011 have already been issued to the afore stated 23 persons, to remove their encroachments on or before 11.2.2011.4. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 state that is the unauthorized encroachments made by 23 persons identified arc not removed by 11.2.20.11. the respondents shall remove the aforesaid encroachments within a period of three months thereafter.13. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4. learned Counsel for the petitioner states t...
Sri V.Sridhar, S/O V.S.Venkatraman. Vs. Smt.Priya, W/O V Sridhar.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Order dated 06.10.2010 in M.C.No. 1939/2009 awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10.000/- per month to the wife and daughter of the petitioner herein along with a sum of Rs. 20.000/- towards litigation expenses, is called in question in this writ, petition.2. M.C.No. 1939/2009 is filed by the petitioner against his wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the petitioner and respondent and also of the minor daughter Neha, whom both of them have adopted.3. Application for maintenance came to be filed by the wife invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance in a sum of Rs. 19.000/- per month along with a sum of Rs. 50.000/- towards litigation expenses. She contended that her husband was getting salary of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month and was also getting interest on the huge investments made in Fixed Deposits in several banks and shares.4. This was objected to by the husband stating...
Sri DattatreyA.S.Karanth S/O Subbraya R.Karanth, and anr. Vs. Sri S.N. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. These two rent petitions under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, thereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) are filed by tenants questioning the order of eviction passed against them. HRRP.247/10 is directed against the order of eviction dated 31.7.2010 in HRC.211/09 and HRRP.248/10 is directed against the order of eviction dated 31.7.2010 in HRC.210/09, on the file of Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH.10).2. The petitions are posted for admission after respondent entered appearance through caveat.3. Heard. The petitions are admitted and taken up for final disposal.4. From what is urged by the learned counsel for both sides, the following facts need reference:a) Respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners invoking Section 27(2) (r) of the Act on the ground that he requires the schedule premises in their occupation for his own use and occupation to expand then-existing business of travel agency run in the name and Style "HANSA TRAVELS'.b) In su...
B.R. Suresh S/O. B.S. Rudraiah. Vs. G. Manoj Kumar S/O. P.G. Menon, an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. There is delay of 140 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent, is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.2. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 6.3.2005. The claimant has sought for compensation at Rs.10.46.000/-. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, has awarded the compensation at Rs.2,92,555/-. However, the claimant unsatisfied with the said award, has filed this appeal.3. Liability of the insurer is not in dispute. No appeal is filed by the insurer. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is; "As to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"4. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered the fracture of both femur bones. He was inpatient from 6.3.2.005 to 14.3.2005 is also no; in dispute. P.W.2-Doctor, who has assessed the disability has stated the disability...
Smt ChithambarammA. W/O Late M LakskmanA. and anr. Vs. the State by By ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of the petition filed by A-2 and A-3 who are said to be mother-in-law and sister-in-law or the deceased Sahithya.2. Deceased Sahithya was done to death by smothering her neck and injuries being caused to her and according to the complaint allegations, these petitioners hatched a plan to see that Sahithya is killed as the deceased was not bringing dowry as demanded by the petitioners and AT and therefore the petitioners by giving amount to A-4 and A-5 to take away the life of Sahithya, ensured that on the date of the incident i.e. on 24.8.09 the accused petitioners permitted A-4 and A-5 to enter the house of the deceased when the deceased was alone and immediately these two petitioners went and sat in the neighbors house till the accused persons A-4 and A-5 after committing the minder came out of the house and thereafter, these petitioners went inside the house and on seeing Sahithya dead, informed A-1 and tried to give a colour to the whole incident and s...
G.S. Marulasiddappa S/O. SiddabasappA. Vs. Dr. Jyothipiakash G.B. S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. There is delay of IB days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.2. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 25.2.2006. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence of record, has granted compensation at Rs.94, 000/-. However, the claimant unsatisfied with the said award, has filed this appeal.3. Liability of the insurer is not in dispute. No appeal is filed by the insurer.4. The undisputed facts of this case are that the claimant has suffered fracture of right 1/3rd of tibia and fibula and fracture of drolocam and five other simple injuries. He was inpatient in the hospital. P.W.2-Doctor has assessed the liability at 45% to 50% to the limb. However, the Tribunal has taken 10% disability to the whole body. While assessing the loss of future income, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.75/- per day. T...
Smt. T. Girijakumari W/O. Late Gopal Kumar, and ors. Vs. the Divisiona ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle. The liability of the insurer is not in dispute. The Tribunal has also held that, the insurer is liable to indemnity the compensation. Hence, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.2. There is delay of 234 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned. However, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation, if any.3. The claimants are wife, minor children and the mother of the deceased. The deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 4.10.2005. It is stated that he was working in Indian Air force getting salary of Rs.6,446/- + HRA at Rs.450/- and ration allowance at Rs. 832/-. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. After deducing l/3rti towards his personal expenses and by adopting the multiplier of 14, the Tribunal has determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 10,...
Sri V.N.Sudhakaran. S/O T.T.Vivekanandan. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The petitioner, who is A3 in Special C.C.No. 208/2004 (Old Special C.C. No. 7/1997) pending on the file of the learned Special Judge and XXXVI Addl. Sessions Judge. Bangalore City. is one of the accused persons against whom the ease is pending in the trial court in respect of the offences alleged under Sections 120B and 109 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1 )(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. The ease of the petitioner is that, the matter was posted for the purpose of recalling some witnesses and for re-examination by the prosecution, on 18th and 19th of this month. On behalf of the petitioner, an application was filed seeking adjournment on the ground that the father of the counsel for the petitioner expired on 14.1.2011 and, as such, the counsel was unable make it to the court. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the date had been already fixed for examination with the consent of all the concerned and. moreove...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »