Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

The Branch Manager. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mahadev, ...

Court: Karnataka

1. As this appeal and cross objection are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together, admitted 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 06.08.2005 when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-03 EH-3573 as a pillion rider on Whitefield road in fronts of Saikrupa Nursing Home, Mahadevapura, Bangalore a Maruthi van bearing registration No. KA-03-N-799 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT. Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs.5, 00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3, 11,800/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. The insurer of the offending vehicle has...

Raghavendra, S/O Nagaraju. Vs. B.C.Sandesh. S/O B.S.Chidananda Reddy, ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the counsel for appellant regarding admission.2. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in WCA-62/2009 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation. Mandya.3. The case of appellant is that he is the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya. wherein he had filed Claim Petition seeking compensation from his employer, respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2 for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15.10.2008 at about 10.30 p.m. while discharging his duties as Cleaner-eum-Conductor in bus bearing No.KA- 16/A-7833 belonging to respondent No.1 herein. It is his ease that in the said accident he has suffered fracture of left foot and also fracture of ribs, in that behalf, he filed Claim Petition wherein he examined himself as P.W.I and also led evidence of the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2. In the said proceedings, P.W.2 has stated that the claimant has suffered disa...

Sri Basavaraju S/O Nadikerigowda, and anr. Vs. Harish S/O Nagaraju, an ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The claimants in MVC No. 1950/2009 on the file of FTC & MACT, Channarayapatna are the appellants in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are that on 13.7.2009 at about 3.30 pin. when the deceased B. Vijayakumar and the complainant Devaraj were going by walk on the left side of the road near Basavanaptira gate on Nuggehalli - Channarayapatna Road, a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-04/EK-832 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the B. Vijayakumar. It resulted in severe injuries to him. He was shifted to hospital, underwent treatment from 13.7.2009 to 29.7.2009. but he died on 29.7.2009 during treatment. The dependents having lost their learning member in the family, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs.3. Insurance Company has denied the case of the claimants; contend that the liability is strictly in accordance with the terms of the policy and that the claim is exaggerated. So pray for dismissal of the claim.4. PWs. 1 & 2 i...

Mithun Pritamdas Chandani. Vs. Payal W/O Mithun Chandani D/O Nandubhai ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard learned advocate Mr Vyas and learned APP Mr Pandya.2. The petitioner approaches this Court with this petition praying to invoke writ jurisdiction and issue a writ of habeas corpus under the following circumstances :-(1) The petitioner got married to Payal-respondent No.1 on 8.5.2004;(2) Payal left the petitioner's house in the year 2006. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be decreed on 30.6.2008;The petitioner filed an application under Section 97 of Cr.PC in the year 2009, which came to be rejected on 5.10.2010.3. The petitioner has not lodged any complaint in respect of departure of his wife or unlawful detention of his wife;4. The petitioner's case from the beginning has been that he does not know the whereabouts of his wife. Similarly, the case of respondent Nos.2 to 6 also has been that whereabouts of petitioner's wife Payal are not known;5. There is no material to infer that Payal was either kidnapped/abducted or ...

Balakrishnarai Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hassan, Hassan District and Oth ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the Order dtd 7.12.10 issued by R1 in No. Revision petition No.4A/2006-2007 as per Annex-G in so far as 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.146 of Balagodu Village.) 1. People who come to this Court invoking writ jurisdiction but based on misrepresentation either on facts or on legal position are persons who deserve no relief in the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Writ petitioner claims to be a person, who has purchased an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.146 of Balagodu Village, Belagodu Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District as per the sale transaction dated 3.11.2004, said to have been executed by one Mr. Nagaraj, S/o. Deveeraiah who is the original grantee of the very village, is further claiming that he had been granted an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in this survey numb...

N.B. Gurudeva Vs. M/S. State Bank of Mysore and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash ANX-E the dt.15.09.2009 Vide No. Nil issued by the R2 as far as the petitioner’s concerned and etc.,) 1. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 15.9.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 13 of the SERFAESI Act seeking to recover a sum of Rs.72,00,571/- from the petitioner and respondent No.3 arising in respect of loan transaction between 3rd respondent and 1st respondent. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under: G.K. Shantha Raju proprietor of 3rd respondent M/s Vinayaka Electrical Enterprises availed credit facility for his business from 1st respondent/State Bank of Mysore. The loan was availed to the turn of Rs.14,50,000/- in the year 1997. The petitioner herein stood as guarantor for the said loan transaction. Since 3rd respondent initiated proceedings for recovery in OA.No.67/2000 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. In the said pr...

Abdul Rasheed and Others Vs. Huligemma and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR660(DB)

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. A suit was filed by them for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property described in the schedule to the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondents / defendants by filing written statement. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and by referring to the proceedings in O.S.No. 151/1985 and Misc. Case No. 99/1986 pleaded the bar of res-judicata. The defendants also questioned the locus standi of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. Noticing the material pleading of the parties, 15 issues were raised by the Trial Court on 7.10.2006. Issue Nos.10 and 12 were treated as preliminary issues. The said issues were answered in the affirmative without any trial having been taken place in the suit. As a result, suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this Appeal. 2. Sri. Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned Counsel for th...

Mrs. Leelavathi Vs. State of Karnataka, by Chief Secretary and Others

Court: Karnataka

(This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, dated 25.07.2010 vide Annexure-G and grant an interim order to stay the operation of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, dated 25.07.2010 vide Annexure-G.) The petitioner claims to be a person who acquired right title and interest to an extent of land measuring 4 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.59 of Kuduregere village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under Sale Deed dated 05.05.2005 said to have been executed by one Krishnegowda who is impleaded as 3rd Respondent and claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land. 2. It is the version of the petitioner that the said land originally was Government land forming part of Sy.No.59 and had been granted in favour of one R.P. Rudrappa under Darkhast by order of Tahsildar bearing No. LND.SR.169/61-62, dated 18.02.1962, copy of th...

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Amtul Hafeez W/O Syed Sabir Amamed, and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is fifed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 09,01.2008 passed in MVC Ho. 419/2004 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional MACT, Shimoga.2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8, 90,000/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.3. The appellant Insurance has taken grounds that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the compensation by assessing 100% disability without there being any examination of the doctor or any other person in the absence of doctors report except the reports as per exs.p.213 to r220 - CT scan report, it was improper on the part of the tribunal to assess the disability at 100% for the purpose of calculating compensation. the petitioner who is the wife of the injured has deposed before the tribunal that her husband was not in a position to speak, since he lost his memory and to those circumstances, jaw requires an ...

R. Kumaraswamy Vs. Smt. Channamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

(This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-C and D passed by respondent no. 4and 5 dated 18/12/1998 and 8/12/2000 respectively.) The writ petition is referred to division Bench pursuant to the order passed by the learned single judge dated 14/11/2002 under section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The learned single judge was of the view that once the conditions of grant are satisfied as per the relevant rules which were in force as on the date of grant, the land ceases to be a granted land and therefore, if the said land was purchased subsequent to coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘act’). Section 4(2) of the said act has no application. But however, the learned single judge had some doubt with regard to the decision in the case of Eranna versus Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurg...