Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

Sri C Chowri S/O Late Chinnadorai. Vs. State of Karnataka Represented ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Writ petitioner claiming to be owner ol an extern of 2 acres of agricultural land in Sy. No. 100/P12 of Arasanahalli Pedanahalli Village. Kundana Hobli. Doddaballapura Taluk, on the basis of a sale transaction dated 23.4.2007 executed by one Shivar.and N Kalburgi, is aggrieved thai the Tahsi'dar, Devanahalli Taluk, at the instance of the third respondent who it appears had given some application/reprcscnta'ion for recognizing his rights in an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy. N0.100/P8, having never theless, ordered the name of the third respondent to be shown In the revenue records in respect of Sy. No. 100/12 and the petitioner being aggrieved by this change in the revenue record, has approached this court for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari in quashing the impugned order dated 9.8.2010 in MR No.2/2010-11 vide Annexure-G passed by the second respondent insofar as it relates to the land bearing Sy. No.100/P12 measuring 2 acres of A...

S.P.Gopalkrishna S/O Late M.S.Putturao. Vs. Ramu.S, S/O Suidegowda, an ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a claimant's appeal against order of dismissal of claim petition.2. I have heard Sri Santosh. learned counsel for claimant and Sri M. Arun Ponappa learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. It is established from evidence on record that soon after the accident, claimant was treated in Aadithya Hospital at Mysore. As per wound certificate issued by the hospital, claimant had suffered following injuries:-I. Diffused swelling of right knee.II. Diffused swelling of right elbow region. The injuries were simple in nature.4. The claimant either at his instance or at the instance of some other person got himself admitted in CSI Hoidsworth Memorial Hospital at Mysore and took treatment with Dr.K.R.Nagabhushana.5. The Tribunal on critical analysis of evidence of PW2- Dr.K.R.Nagabhushan of CSI Holdsworth Memorial Hospital and PW3-Dr.N.Chandrashekhai. Medical Officer of Aadithya Hospital has held that claimant on. his volition got discharged from Aadithya Hospital and got admitted in CSI ...

Master.M.Mohammed Nadeem @ . M.Nadeem. S/O Sri.Mohammed Muneer. Vs. Sr ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The matter is listed for admission. The lower court records are received. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. As per wound certificate, claimant had suffered following injuries:-I. Loss of hearing through left earII. Concussive head injuryIII. Haematoma over right gluteal regionIV. Haematoma over scalp though the injuries are simple in nature, injury No. 1 has resulted in partial loss of hearing through left ear. Which has been evaluated at 26.25% disability of whole body by KV2-Dr.Sanjav Kumar? The claimant was aged about 9 year at the time of accident. The claimant may recover from partial deafness, but there is no certainty. Therefore, I determine permanent physical disability vis-a-vis loss of earning capacity at 20%.3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50 000/-under following heads:-1. Pain and suffering: Rs.20, 000/-2. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of lif...

NarayariappA.M.C S/O Chikkappaiah. Vs. BommannA.D.M S/O Marudaopa, and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The Tribunal without proper appreciation of evidence has accepted the case of the claimant that, he had suffered lacerated wound over the right leg below knee and abrasion over left side of head had awarded compensation of Rs.74,520/-. The claimant emboldened by the success before die Tribunal has approached this Court for enhancement of compensation.3. I have heard Sri. Pate 1 D.Karegowda, learned counsel for claimant and Sri.K.N.Srinivasa, learned counsel for insurance company and 1 have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.4. As per the contents of wound certificate, claimant had suffered fracture of both bones of right leg. In addition to the above, the claimant has produced the documents issued by Manasa Hospital, Gowribidanur. As per the case sheet, claimant had suffered fractures of both bones of rigid leg. The claimant has not produced the X-rays taken immediately after the accident. The claimant...

Sri.H.Lokesh S/O HanumanthappA. Vs. Srih.S.Devaraj S/O Subbegowda, and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Respondent No,4 is the owner of the vehicle who Is placed exparte before the Tribunal and seeks dispensation of notice to Respondent No.4. Hence notice to Respondent No.4 m dispensed with.2. There is a delay of 293 days in filing the appeal.. Though the- contesting respondents are served and representeds no objections are filed. Considering the same, cause shown in the affidavit Is accepted. Delay m condoned. LA.HO.1/2008 for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. This is a claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the Judgment and Award dated 22.06.2007 in M.V.C 105/2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal Kadur.4. Claimant suffered grievous- injury in a road accident on 8.03.2005. In this regard sought for compensation of Rs.10, 00,000/ -. Claimant has adduced evidence of Doctor, who has stated that the claimant has suffered fracture of orbital region, route of the nose upper lid of left eye. left hip...

Kiran Vs. Anand and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)623; 2011(6)KantLJ558; 2012CrLJ590

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner was a complainant who had initiated proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent herein. The proceedings were contested by the respondents. The Court below, on the allegation of the complainant that the complainant-petitioner had business transactions with the respondents, who were a partnership firm engaged in dealing with tarpaulins and that the respondent herein had approached him for a loan and it was granted to him. On default of payment, a demand was made by the petitioner and in consideration of discharge of the loan, the respondent herein had issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 30.6.2001. The said cheque, when presented to the Banker of the petitioner, the same was returned on 31.12.2001 with an endorsement by the Banker of the respondent as follows: `r...

The Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Bangalore and Others Vs. Hennur ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.2306/2007 and connected matters dated 20.08.2008.) 1. These batch of writ appeals are preferred by the State, challenging that portion of the learned Single Judge’s order interpreting Section 3-D of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), holding that the Section does not stipulate any levy on the mere existence of the facility and the tax is leviable only on the member who utilizes the facility available in the club. 2. The Karnataka Legislature, in order to augment the revenue of the State, proposed to levy tax on luxuries provided in hotels and lodging houses and therefore, it enacted Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 which came into force from 31st March, 1979. At the inception, there was no provision for levy and collection of tax on luxuries provided in a club. In fact, as the law...

M/S. Kamangar and Company Vs. M/S. A.L. Byahatti and Sons and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)1576

VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of money. 1st defendant is a registered partnership firm constituted by defendants 2-4, under Ex.D-8. The firm was carrying on business in produces like onions, garlic etc. the 3rd defendant, representing the 1st defendant, purchased onions from the plaintiff between 08.11.1999 to 10.01.2000, to the tune of Rs.5,26,336.58 and paid Rs.3,02,737/- and retained the balance of Rs.2,23,599.58. A cheque dated 24.01.2000 for Rs.25,000/- (Ex.P-5) was issued towards payment of part of the outstanding amount. The cheque was returned unhonoured (Ex.P-6). A legal notice as per Ex.P-7 was sent, which was served on defendants 1 and 2 (Ex.P-7(a) and Ex.P-7(b)). The notices sent to defendants 3 and 4 were returned (Ex.P-7(c) to (f)). Suit for recovery of Rs.2,23,599.58 was instituted. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 appeared through their Learned Counsel. 2nd defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by defendants 1...

M. Manjappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR590(DB)

B. Manohar, J. 1. Appellant is the petitioner in W.P.No. 37875/1993 being aggrieved by the order dated 14-6-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner confirming the order dated 31-7-1993 passed by the Land Tribunal filed this appeal. 2. The appellant has contended that he is a tenant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 10 measuring 3 acres 27 guntas of land situated at Arhatolalu village. Bhadravathi Taluk from the year 1969. The said land was taken on lease from one Kalamma who is the grandmother of respondents 13 and 14 herein as per Guthige Kararu Pathra dated 6-10-1969 since then he has been in possession and cultivating the said land. In view of coming into force the Land Reforms Act, he filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. Further respondents 3,4,5 also filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. The Land Tribunal after clubbing all...

State of Karnataka by Chickballapur Town Police Vs. N. Rajesh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR642

B.V. Pinto, J: 1. This appeal is filed by the State Challenging he judgment dated 31.1.04 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Chickballapur, in C.C.No. 125/01 challenging the acquittal of A-1 for the offence under Sections 323, 498A. 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short D.P. Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the accused took place with the complainant Surekha on 15.5.98 at Kota Vijayalakshmi Kalyana Mantapa and at the time of the marriage. It is alleged that the accused has demanded and received dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs and also after the marriage, he was harassing her and abusing her for the purpose of extracting dowry from the parents of the complainant and on 12.8.2000 he had criminally intimidated the complainant and assaulted with hands thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 323, 498A and 506 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has...