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.
Mr N K Venkatesh Babu S/O N.V. Kodandarama Chetty. Vs. Mr K N Subraman ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The defendant in O.S.No.504/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn). Mulabagal. aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2010 rejecting I.A.No.5 under Section 151 CPC to impound the alleged lease deed dated 22.12.2006 as being insufficiently stamped and unregistered and allowing the plaintiffs I.A.No.6 under Order 7 Rule 14(A) permitting the plaintiff to file the documents annexed to the list and to condone the delay, has presented this petition.2. The suit instituted by the respondent for permanent injunction in respect of a certain immovable property on the premise that he was a lessee of agricultural lands under an unregistered lease deed dated 22.12.2006 executed by the petitioner/defendant, was resisted by filing written statement contending interalia that the suit was not maintainable since no lease of agricultural land was permitted in law while the agreement was concocted and fabricated. On 22.12.2009. the plaintiff filed the affidavit in lieu of recording examination-in-chief. ...
Lakshmana Sharma S/O Late K.S.Narayana Rao. Vs. the Managing Director ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 2.7.2009 as per Annexure-F rejecting the request of the petitioner for payment of difference in gratuity amount and leave encashment benefit.2. Petitioner was a Conductor in the respondent -Corporation. For misconduct of pilferage in revenue, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 9.5.2001 an order of penalty dismissing the petitioner from service came to be passed. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute before the labour Court in I.D.No.41/2001 under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). On contest the labour Court vide order dated 1.3.2005 passed an award holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved. But by exercising discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, the labour Court found that the extreme penalty of dismissal as shockingly disproportionate. Consequ...
Sanath Kumar S/O Late Shanthiraj Poovani. Vs. Mr N Ramesh Rao S/O Late ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The rejection of 1st defendant's I.A.No.4 under Sec. 10 CPC r/w Sec. 132 & 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961. in O.S.No.83/04 by order dt. 6/3/2009 of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). Bantwal, O.K.. is called in question in this petition.2. The suit schedule property is described as Sy.No.27/2. Southern portion, Nanja. extent 0.66. of which, the petitioners father by name Shanthiraja Poovani. it is asserted in the plaint was a monthly tenant. It is not in dispute that in the suit, the court has framed as many as 12 issues of which the 1st issue relates to whether the plaintiff proves that the father of the petitioner was a monthly tenant of the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made an application under Sec.77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for grant of land asserting that immediately before 1st day of March 1974 was in actual possession and cultivation of the land which was vested in the State under Sec.44 and though entitled t...
Sri Shantaveeraiah S/O Gurushanthaiah, and ors. Vs. Smt Shantaveeramma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Petitioners when arraigned as defendants in O.S. No. 147/2008 instituted by the respondent for permanent injunction in respect of a vacant site bearing Katha Assessment No.89/59 at Nayakanahatti Village. Challakere Taluk, resisted the suit by filing written statement interalia making a counter claim ever a certain immovable property though not the suit schedule property. After a trial, the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Challakere. allowed the suit and rejected the counter claim, by judgment and decree dated following which the petitioners R.A.No.50/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge. Challakere.2. In the appeal, petitioners filed I.A.Mo. 1 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint a Court Commissioner to measure the disputed property and inspect the same and submit a report. In the affidavit accompanying the application sworn to by the 4,h petitioner, it was stated that before the Trial Court, in the written statement, a specific contention was advanced that the counter claim property was the an...
Smt SarojammA. Vs. Sri K.R.Ramesh, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The claimant in MVC No.2137/2003 on the file of VII Addl. Judge, Member MACT (SCCH-3) is the appellant in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are that on 15.2 2003. petitioner is said to be travelling in a Maxi cab bearing Reg no. No KA-05/AA-5859. While so, the driver of the Cab has driven the vehicle rashly, negligently and dashed against the parked lorry. It resulted in an accident. So for the pain and suffering petitioner claims compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. The Insurance Company has denied the case pleaded by the petitioner, contend that it is exaggerated, and further contend that there is permit to carry only 10 passengers. So, the Company's liability is limited to that extent. So prays for dismissal of the claim petition. PWs.1 to 3 are examined. PW-3 Dr. Raines 1) Krishna, who examined the injured certifies that with the disability of 14%, petitioner cannot do the vegetable vending business. Based on this evidence, learned counsel appearing for the p...
P.K. Padmakar, S/O. Late P.S. Krishnamurthy. Vs. Sri K.S. Satyamurthy, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Misc.Cvl.6326/2010 is filed for recalling the order dated 10-12-2008 wherein the appeal was dismissed for absence of the counsel appearing for the appellant even though the matter was called twice Since there is a delay of 443 days in filing the application for recalling, Misc.Cvl.No.6324/2010 is filed for condonation of the said delay.2. Notice of the applications was issued to the respondents.3. It is avrred in the affidavits in support of the applications that since the cause list was not received, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not be present and thereafter he was under the impression that since the appeal is of the year 2001 the matter will be decided in due course, 'thereafter, he could not be present before the Court and he was informed by his colleague advocate that matter has been adjourned without giving the date. The appellant was under the impression that matter would be listed before the Court and when the other cases of the year 2001 were listed ...
S.MuralidharA. S/O R.Soundar Rajan, and ors. Vs. the Karnataka State T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. In these petitions, petitioners are seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Rev.P.Nos.711 & 1501/2007. 717/2007 and 1500/2007 and 713/2007 and 1494/2007 at Annexs.G. H and J respectively and for grant such other reliefs.2. As per the events, a joint survey has been conducted by the competent authority in the presence of the representatives of KSRTC and others on 7.9.2006 and by a resolution of the 1st respondent, it was decided to grant stage carriage permit to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said resolution, revision petitions were filed by the 2nd respondent-KSRTC and the 3rd respondent. Ultimately, impugned order came to be passed by the Tribunal allowing the revision and setting aside the permit granted to the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2009. Hence, these petitions.3. According to the petitioner, the Is' respondent-KSTA has ensured that joint sat vey is conducted as per the dir...
Thippeswamy S/O LingappA. Vs. D.A.Kutub Masthan S/O Abdul Rehaman Pand ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Sri.Krishnoji Rao, learned counsel for claimant and Sri.Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for M/s.Oriental Insurance Company. As per the medical records and medical evidence, claimant had suffered following injuries:1) Fracture shaft of left femur2) Fracture of left fibula distal end3) Left Foot Drop4) Haematoma of left thigh5) Fat Embolism6) Haepatorenal Syndrome7) Ventilator associated pneumonia8) Urosepsis (El.Coli)4. The claimant was treated in Manipal Hospital. He was inpatient from 17.2.2007 to 21.3.2007. The fracture was reduced by open reduction and internal fixation. The petitioner had second admission for removal of implants fixed to left femur on 4.10.2007 and he was discharged on 17 10.2007. At the time of discharge, he had three healed surgical scar over the posterior and lateral aspect of the proximal femur, diatal femur and lateral aspect of fibula. He did not have swelling, deformity or sinus. H...
Smt Venkatamma D/O RamakkA. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority Rep by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the first respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to initiate action against the second respondent to evict him from site Mo. 18 Sy.No.35 of Sampangiramanagar, Bangalore, and to deliver physical possession of the said site to the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid site was allotted to the petitioner's mother Smt. Ramakka in the year 1956. Thereafter in violation of certain terms and conditions, the petitioner's mother sold the said site by a registered sale deed dated 13.4.1966 to the second respondent. The second respondent has been in possession of the said site since the year 1966. Now in the year 2010 this wait petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to initiate action against the second respondent so that he can be exacted from the said site and deliver the same to die petitioner.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. ...
Kum Asha, D/O SarojammA. Vs. Sri Vazeer. S/O Bakshisab, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. The claimant in MVC No.361/2004 on the file of MACT & Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ramanagaram. is the Appellant.2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are that on 7.6.2004 at 2.15 pm, it is the case of pethioner while the petitioner was standing beside electric pole at Thimmasandra Road curve, the driver of lot iy bearing Regn.No.CTT-7086 has driven the vehicle rashly, negligently and dashed against her. It resulted in injuries to her. So. she seeks compensation of Rs.3.5 lakhs.3. The respondent Insurance Company has entered appearance, filed objections denied the manner in which the accident occurred, call upon the petitioner 10 prove the same. Further, contend that the petitioner was a passenger in the goods vehicle according 10 the police records. So her case that she was standing on the road near the electric police has to be disbelieved, so pray for dismissal of the claim petition against the petitioner. RW 1 is examined. Exhibits P-1 to P-6 and R-1 are marked the le...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »