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.
R V Nanda Kumar S/O V Venkataraman. Vs. Prabhakara S/ O Manjunath, and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. As these appeals are arising out of common judgements and awarded tribunal they heard together and disposed, of by this common judgements.2, For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal,3. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: On 27.11.1909, when, the claimant was returning home by walk, alter visiting Shanidevaru Temple on Belur Road, Chikmagalur, and the rider of the motorcycle .bearing registration-. No.KA-18-E-8946 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Chikmagalur seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of R$,4,27,072/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal: The claimant has filed MFA No. 13814/2007 for enhancement of compensation and the insurance company has filed MFA Ho. 13504...
National Insurance Co. Ltd, and anr. Vs. T Chikkamuniswamy Gowda, S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. As these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and awarded 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 18.12.2004 when the claimant was boarding BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA-04-C-500 near Yarthaganahalli gate in Devanahalli Taluk, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and as a result, claimant fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs.3,75, 000/ and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and BMTC to pay the compensation to the claimant. Jointly and severally and directed the Insurer lo deposit the amount within one m...
P.Sundra Murthy S/O A.Palaniswamy. Vs. the Manager the Oriental Insura ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The learned counsel for appellant is absent. I have heard Sri.B.S.Umesh, learned counsel for insurance company. I have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.3. The copy wound certificate issued by Manipal Hospital would reveal that claimant had suffered following injuries:i)Fracture of right patellaii)Fracture of right humerus and radia nerve palsy rightiii)Lacerated wound over right heel,iv)Lacerated wound over right elbow4. The claimant, was treated in Manipal Hospital. He was inpatient for a period of 14 days. The Tribunal on scrutiny of medical bills and receipts has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.24.000/- towards medical expenditure.5. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years and he was working as Collection Executive in M/s. Ganesha Finance on a monthly salary of Rs.4,600/-. As per the medical evidence, claimant suffers from residual effects of injuries; he has restricted movemen...
Binoy S/O O.J. John. Vs. Manoj, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The claimant in MVC No.682/2005 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.3. The fat is relating to the accident having occurred on 03.02.2004 and the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute.4. The issue for consideration in this appeal is only with regard to the enhancement of compensation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal is contrary to the medical evidence and the income reckoned is also on the lower side, despite there being evidence to indicate the income. On the other heads also, learned counsel seeks enhancement of compensation.5. Learned counsel for the respondent however seeks to justify the award and contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself is on the higher side and the same doses not call for enhancement.6. Having considered the rival contentions, firstly with rega...
M/S Sreenivasa Traders, and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1.Petitioners, license holders under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, carrying on business of trading in notified agricultural commodities in marketing yard, Hiriyur, were allotted site Nos. 49, 51 & 37 respectively at Hinyur market yard following which the petitioners paid the full value. The respondent, APMC, without executing the lease-cum-sale agreement passed the orders dt. 25/8/2010 and 17/7/2010, Annexures Al. A2 and A3 forfeiting the allotments. Hence these petitions.2. Although the petitioners have sought the relief to strike down Rule 10(1)(ii)&(iv) r/w Schedule IV (4) of the lease cum sale agreement appended to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules. 2004. their learned Counsel does not press that relief.3. There is force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents, without executing the agreement of sale, proceeded to forfeit and cancel ...
Akbar Sab S/O Haneef Sab. Vs. Mehaboob Sikhandar Gaddakar, Ans ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The claimant in MVC.No. 198/05 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as against the sum awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.3. The facts relating to the claimant having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 19.1.2005 is not seriously in dispute. The question for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the enhancement of compensation.4. Firstly keeping in view the wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.P6 and also the documents Exs P7 and P9, the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken in this regard is established in any event, the Tribunal after appreciating the said documents has arrived at the conclusion that the disability is to be taken at 10% and in this regard since the same has not been assailed, the same would have to be taken into consideration. However, while considering the compensation to be awarded under the head of loss of future income though the said disabi...
M/S. Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.06.2009 at Annexure 'E' for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes acting under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956 r/w Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act of 2003: to quash the consequent demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure 'F: to strike down the interest levied as per Section 36 of the KVAT Act of 2003 and to declare and strike down Section 72(2) of the KVAT Act as unconstitutional.2. According to the petitioner, stating that statutory forms i.e., declaration F' has not been tiled with local VAT Officer in respect of stock transfer. the 2nd respondent had issued the notice to which the petitioner furnished the particulars for the period 2006 2007 in relation to the assessment under Central Sales Tax Act of 1956, however, stating that stock transferred to its own branches within the State is not covered Se...
Sri M E Prasanna S/O K M ErappA. Vs. Sri K R Somashekar S/O T S Ramach ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The claimant is before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of coin pen sat ion as against the sum awarded by the Tribunal and also assailing that portion of the finding of the Tribunal fastening 20% negligence on the claimant.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.3. During the course of the arguments, only two points have arisen for consideration in this appeal. Firstly, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the negligence of 20% on the rider of the motor cycle viz.. the claimant. The second aspect is with regard to the appropriate disability and income to be reckoned and consequently the compensation thereof.4. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal no doubt has considered this aspect in detail, more particularly, in para-8 of the judgment. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal has taken note of the copy of FIR, the copy of the mahazar and report of the motor cycle Inspector. In addition, the charge s...
H R Shivaji Rao S/O Late Rama Rao. Vs. Smt. Jayalakshmamma W/O Late C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The claimant in MVC No.7984/2006 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as against the sum awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard the learned counsel appealing for the parties and perused the appeal papers.3. The facts relating to the accident having occurred on 02.11.2006 and the injuries suffered by the claimant are not seriously in dispute. The only question for consideration is with regard to the enhancement of Compensation.4. The learned counsel for the appellant con I ends that the compensation requires to be enhanced under all heads, more particularly with regard to the loss of future income and the compensation awarded towards loss of amenities.5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company seriously disputes the same. its contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself is on the higher side and as such the same does not call for interference. It is also contended that the income has not been established with satisfactory proof and therefo...
Sri Lokesh, Vs. M/S Juggath Bharam Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. This appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.1799 2010 [L RES]; being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated .5.2.2010, wherein, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with, the Judgment and Award passed by the Presiding Officer, First Addl. Labour Court at Bangalore dated 29*6.2003.3. The appellant was working in the respondent organisation and he was issued a charge sheet cum show cause notice for unauthorised absence for a period of 75 days from July 2006 to November 2006 as per writ petition. Being not satisfied with the reply given by the workman, the domestic enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer held that the charge has been proved the disciplinary authority: accepting the report, of the enquiry officer imposed. The penalty of dismissal from service There after the matter was taken up before the Conciliation Officer and ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »