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.Bhaskar Palan. S/O Guruva Anchan. Vs. the Regional Transport Autho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. These petitions have been preferred by the operator against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 14.05.2008 and 21.05.2008 passed in Appeal No.346/2008 at Annexures D and H respectively and. to remand the matter to the 1st respondent to reconsider the modified application dated 11.09.2006 alter hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law and. for such other orders.3. It is stated, petitioner has obtained the permit on 2.5.2006. He also has filed an application on 29.S.2006 for grant of variation of conditions of permit seeking extension of the route. The said application and similar such applications filed and also the modified application filed by the 3rd respondent subsequent to the meeting held on 6.9.2006 for variation, came to be rejected on the ground that variation proposed are detriment to the public conveyance of the respective areas. Against the order of rejection dated 6.9.2006, an ap...
Mayanna S/O Kempaiah. Vs. the Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd, and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Smt.Bhushani Kumar, learned counsel for claimant and Smt.H.C.Lokeshwari, learned counsel for Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for insurance company.3. The claimant had suffered fracture of right patela. The Tribunal has awardedcompensation of Rs,96,840/- under following heads:I Pain and suffering Rs.20.000II Expenditure including charges, Medical expensesRs. 10,000III Loss of income during the period of treatmentRs. 6.000IV Loss of amenities(Rs.3, 000 x 13% x 12 x 13) Rs.60.840 TotalRs.96, 8404. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and going through the records, I find that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60, 840/- towards 'loss of future earnings' but, the same is shown as compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'attendant and conveyance charges' is inadequate and the tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head Toss of amenities'. Apar...
Siraj, S/O Hasan Saheb @ Monu. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Cubbon Park ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of bail sought by accused no. 7 who is one of the accused persons against whom case is registered in Cr.No.234/10 for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 447, 307, 387, 506 IPC and u/s 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, on 25.9.10 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused persons went near Mantri Developers office on Vittal Mallya road and fired from the revolver and tried to escape and during the chase by the police, A-2 was shot by the police, and other persons escaped. The entire incident is said to be to pressurize the business people to give hafta money.3. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, against this petitioner who is A-7, there are no allegations in the charge sheet and all that was recovered from him is said to be a telephone directory and nothing more and moreover the main accused are A-1 and A-4 assisted by A-3. A-5 and A-6. Therefore, the petitioner be released on bail is the submission made by ...
G. Mahadevaiah S/O Gangadharaiah. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 5.2. Heard.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders in revision petitions filed by respondent No.6, i.e., Revision Petition Nos.3/2009 and 4/2009 are not pronounced as on this day.4. According to the petitioner, the arguments of the parties in the aforementioned revision petitions were heard and reserved for orders, by the second respondent as far back as on 11.1.2010, but the orders in the revision petitions are not pronounced. In that regard, the petitioner had approached this Court, by filing WP.Nos.23256-23257/2010, praying tor necessary direction to respondent No.2. This court disposed of the said writ petitions on 3.8.2010, with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the very authority who has heard the revision petitions, with a request to pronounce the orders. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 3.8.2010 in WP.Nos.23256-23257/2010, the petitioner made an application before t...
V. Muniyappa S/O Venkataramanappa, and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Petitioners have sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to consider their representation dated 31.5.2008, vide Annexure-A for regularisation of their services and for payment of equal salary for equal work.2. Petitioners have relied on a judgment of this Court passed in VVP.Nos.26791-26792/2010 and connected matters, disposed of on 25.11.2010, in support of their contentions.3. Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that respondents 2 and 3 will consider the case of the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law if the petitioners are entitled to their regularization.4. This Court in WP.Nos.26791-26792/2010 and connected matter, has concluded thus: - The petitions are allowed and the respondent-BBMP is directed to give the petitioners also equal pa/ for equal work as was done in the case of aforementioned employees working in the very same zone T. Dasarahalli and as well as other employees who are similarly placed working in other zon...
Mr. Usman, S/O Syed BavvA. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority. Manga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent.2. According to the petitioner, he is said to have filed an application for grant of stage carriage permit for the route from Kinnigoli to Arkula and back within the region of Dakshina Kanuada. Mangalore. Although the application was assigned with subject No. 12/2009-2010 and was listed in the meeting of lift respondent held during March 2010. it has not been considered Hence, he has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the application filed as per Annexure A'.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the application filed is pending consideration since more than two years for grant of permit to operate the vehicle in the route as prayed for.4. In the event, if the application filed by the petitioner Is pending consideration and has not been considered in the meeting held during March 3010, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. within two months from the da...
Sri Thimmappa S/O BhimappA. Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd, and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The claimant in MVC No. 196/2007 on the file of I Audi. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & III. Addl. MACT. Davanagere is the appellant in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are lha on 5.' .2007 at 6.00 pm. when the petitioner was said to be crossing the road at Belludi Cross of Malebennur-Harihar road, the driver of the motor cycle bearing Regn. No.KA-27/K-4769 has driven the vehicle rashly, negligently and dashed against the petitioner. It resulted in the accident, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. So. pray for compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. 3. The insurer has entered appearance. Denied the case pleaded by the petitioner. Call upon the petitioner to prove the same. On these wide pleadings PWs.1 and 2 are examiner Exhibits P-1 to P 20 are marked. PW 2 is the doctor who certifies the disability of the injured. Insurance Policy is marked as Ex.R-1 and case sheet is marked as Ex.R 2. PW-2 in the course of his evidence states that there is disabilit...
A.V.Amarnathan S/O.T. K. Karunakaran, and anr. Vs. the Union of India, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Memo dated 20.1.2011 has been filed by Respondent No.3. Paragraphs 2 and .3 of the aforesaid memo arc relevant. The same are, accordingly being extracted hereunder:2. It is submitted that the 3rd Respondent, follows a transparent procedure in procuring goods. The 3rd Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking under the Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The 3rd Respondent has its own notified and Board approved Purchase Manual. It is submitted that the Purchase Manual prescribes a comprehensive procedure to procure goods in a transparent manner. The Purchase Manual was last published in the year 1986 (18.02.1986), with amendments being made from time to time. The revision of the said Manual is currently under progress. Further, there are guidelines issued by CVC and the Government of India from time to time which are being followed by the Company.3. It is submitted that the Purchase Manual provides for procurement of goods through several mode...
Sri. Mohammed Arif Pasha S/O Mr Abdul Kareem. Vs. Karnataka State Fina ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Rejection of plaintiffs LA.No.9 under Order 14 rule 5 CPC. in O.S.No. 17255/06, by order dt. 10/1/201 1 of the IV Addi. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, to delete issue No.2 and frame additional issue, has led to the filing of this petition.2. The petitioner instituted O.S.No. 17255/06 for the following relief: "WHEREFORE, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from proceeding against the schedule property for realisation of the amount due by the defendant No.2nd In the plaint it is asserted that the petitioners father purchased the suit schedule property from his mother, Smt. Majan Bi, under a sale deed dt. 21/2/iQ68 The father of the plaintiff for family necessity, on 24/8/1979, sold the said property for a sale consideration of Rs.8,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent are on the very same day. entered into an agreement dt. 24/8/1979 with the 2n...
Nagarajnaik @ Duddanaik. S/O Chandra Naik. Vs. G.Ravi S/O Govindanaik, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Claimant in MVC No. 151/2008 on the file of III Addl Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Davanagere, is the appellant in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are that on 17.10.2007, the petitioner was taking his bullocks to bring maize machine, while so, it is claimed that at 6.30 pm on the said day. the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.KA-17/A-4223. driven by its driver rashly, negligently, dashed against the petitioner 's bullocks causing death of one bullock and injuries to another bullock. So seeks compensation.3. The claim of the petitioner is disputed by the Insurance Company . PW-1 is examined. Exhibits P-1 to P-8 are marked. Insurance Policy is marked at Ex.R-1. Learned member of the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20.000/- for the death of one bullock and injury to another bullock.4. Looking to the nature and age of bullocks, compensation is increased to Rs.30.000/- fromRs.20.000/-. It shall carry interest at 6% pa. from the date of petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »