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.
Sudhakar S/O. K. RajannA. Vs. H.K. Suresh S/O. Kempegowda, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Notice is Respondent No. 1 is dispensed with, as the liability of respondent No.2 is not in dispute.2. There is delay of 320 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned. However, the claimant is not entitled for the enhanced compensation, if any.3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 8.2.2006. In this regard, he has sought for compensation at Rs.8.23.000/-. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded Rs. 1.20.000/-. Unsatisfied with the said award, the claimant has filed this appeal. No appeal is filed by the Insurer.4. The facts, which arc not in dispute, are that the claimant has suffered crush injury on right foot and ankle. He was inpatient in hospital for 22 days. He was applied with POP and skin drafting was done. He was discharged on 1.3.2006. The claimant ha...
Ravi H. Bhusa Reddy S/O Hutchappa Bhusa Reddy, and ors. Vs. State of K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Sri T.K.Deepak takes notice on behalf of respondent No.22. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, Sri Deepak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned Government Advocate.3. Petitioners are qualified Engineers, who have passed BE Degree. They were appointed as Engineers on ad-hoc basis against the sanctioned posts, after holding the interviews in the month of July 1999. It is needless to observe that the recruitments were made pursuant to the Notification issued by the Respondent-Board. Now according to the petitioners, their services are sought to be terminated and in their places certain other persons are sought, to be appointed.4. Records reveal that respondent No.2-Board has recommended the case of the petitioners for regularization and has sent draft rules for absorbing the ad-hoc employees/Engineers. Recommendation of the Board is turned down by issuing an endorsement at Annexure-S, dated 18.1.2011 by observing that the request of th...
Mr Syed Babajan S/O Mr Syed Madar Sab. Vs. the State of Karnataka Repr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The instaut writ petition has been filed by Syed Babajan, as a cause in public interest. The petitioner claims to be an inhabitant of Cholamballi Village. Guluru Hobli. Turnkur Taluk and District. It is also the case of the petitioner, that his family owns agricultural land measuring 6 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No. 18 of the same village. According to averments made in the writpetition, the land adjoining to the petitioner's land comprises of a hillock which has a heritage temple. The said adjoining land is also part of Sy.17 of the same village.2. It is averred at the hands of the petitioner, that respondent Nos. 11 to 13 have been carrying quarrying operations in the land adjoining the land of the petitioner's family for the last more than 10 years, and have been causing severe air pollution detrimental to the health of the residents of the area.3. It is also the contention of the petitioner, that the aforestated respondents are using dynamite for carrying on their quarrying activity ...
Sri.Vijay @ Vijaya Upadyaya S/O Sri.Ramachar UpadyayA. Vs. Sri.B.N.Jag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Sri Chikkanna, learned counsel for claimant and Sri Nagesh learned counsel for Sri C.M.Poonacha, learned counsel for Insurance Company and I have been taken through evidence arid the impugned judgment.3. As per medical records and medical evidence, claimant had suffered fractures of left tibia & fibula. The claimant was treated in Varna Nursing Home at Bangalore. As per evidence of claimant, even after complete treatment, he suffers from various disabilities.4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.. 1.63,826/- under following heads:-1. Pain and suffering:Rs.30.000/-2. Attendant charges:Rs.3.000/3. Food and nourishment: Rs.3,000/-4. Travelling expenses:Rs.2,000/-5. Medical expenses:Rs.87.826/-6. Loss of amenities & enjoyment of life: Rs.15.000/-7. Loss of earnings during laid up period: Rs.23,000/-Total:Rs. 1.63,826/-Rounded off toRs. 1.64,000/-5. On hearing learned counsel for parties and on reconside...
Mr.Atul Lall, S/O Mr.M.B.L.SaxenA. Vs. Union of India, Through the Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The show-cause notice dated 05.02.2010 issued by the Deputy Director (Adjudicating Authority) calling upon the petitioner to show- cause why proceedings as contemplated under Section 13( i) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "FEMA') should not be initiated as provided under Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings & Appeal) Rules, 2000 for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Roles is called in question in this writ petition.2. The show-cause notice is issued based on the complaint filed by the Assistant Director of Enforcement. Bangalore, on 01.02.2010 under Section 16(3) of the FEMA alleging that M/s.Enlel (pvt.) Limited had made export of Quartz Analog Wrist Watches along with FOP items to a Foreign Trading Establishment located at Dubai during the period between 03.07.1998 to .18.07.1998 for the value of Rs.51.44,468/-, but had failed to realize the export proceeds within the specif...
S Ravi Kumar. S/O SubramanyA. Vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The 1st respondent-Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank tiled a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act arraigning the petitioner as party respondent which culminated in an award for payment of Rs.34, 32, 607/- together with cost and simple interest at 11%. The award Annexure-A permitted the 1st respondent-Bank to sell the immovable property bearing No. 18, Katha No. 71/6. Jaraganahalli hobli. Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 30' and North to South 40. According to the petitioner, Rs.30 lakhs was extended as finance assistance for purchase of the aforesaid immovable property.2. The 2nd respondent-Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued Form No.6 dt. 19.9.2009 Annexure-B for attachment of the immovable properties and sale notice whence the petitioner filed appeal No.897/2009 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). In the said appeal KAT stayed the auction notice subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/- on the date of th...
R. Gopi S/O. T.R. Rajendran. Vs. B. Krishnappa S/O. Late Subbaiah and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle. The liability of the insurer is not in dispute. Hence, notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with.2. There is an inordinate delay of 684 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned. However, the matter is also considered on merits.3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road accident, that occurred on 25.8.1999. the had sought for compensation of 3,00.000/-. However, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, has awarded a compensation of Rs.35,513/-. Being unsatisfied with the said award, the claimant has filed this appeal. No appeal is filed by the insurer. The claimant was a minor at the nine of filing of the claim petition. The claimant, after having attained the age of majority, has filed this appeal. 4. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered the fracture of l...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd, and anr. Vs. Smt. Jayanthi, W/O. Padma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. As these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: That on 04.1C.2003 when the claimant and others were travelling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07-F 744 from Bangalore to Gouribidanur near Gololahalli a lory bearing registration No. KA-06-239 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus, as a result the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, she filed a claim petition before MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs.3,00.000/- and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 29,200/-with interest at 7% p.a.4. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurer of the offending vehicle has filed MFA 12420/2006 challenging fastening of liability against them and whereas the claimant has f...
Rizwan Ahmed S/O K.M.Mohammed. Vs. A.Balakrishna S/O A.Rama Patali, an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The matter is listed for admission. Lower court records are received. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. The wound certificate marked as per P2x.P4 would reveal (hat claimant had suffered following injuries:1) Lacerated wound measuring 4cms x 1cms on left palm2) Grazed abrasion measuring 2cms x 1cms of right fore arm.3) Lacerated injury measuring 5cms x 3cms of right knee joint with quadricep muscle tear and Haemorthrosis.4. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 18 years. As per the claim petition, he was a businessman and also a student.5. The Tribunal due to absence of satisfactory medical evidence m proof of injuries and residual effects of injuries, has awarded global compensation of Rs.28.000/-.6. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and on reconsideration of the matter. I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to additional com...
G.P. Holder Somashekarappa S/O. DoddahallappA. Vs. the Land Tribunal S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W P No.488/79. The same was disposed of on 30.11.1983 remanding the matter for fresh consideration. After remand the present order dated 12.2.2004 is passed granting occupancy rights in favour of the third respondent, which is under challenge.2. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not verified as to whether the third respondent made a claim in respect of entire extent of land measuring 3 acres 31 guntas: As per the facts available to the Tribunal, earlier one Sri Kalingappa was the tenant under whom the present third respondent was a sub-tenant. From the revenue records, it could be seen that Sri Kalingappa was cultivating the land to the extent of 2 acres whereas the third respondent was in cultivation of 1 acre. Notwithstanding the same, the Tribunal has granted the entire extent of" land to the third respondent. The Tribunal has thus failed to consider as to who is in actual possession as on 1.3.1974.3. As pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »