Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

The Mysore Urban Development Authority and Another Vs. Chikkaboraiah a ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This Appeal is filed by the second and third respondents in W.P.No. 31712/2002 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 23-7-2003 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition declaring that acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to Annexure - C insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned, had lapsed. 2. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein who died on 11-2-2008 during the pendency of this appeal and his L.Rs. have been brought on record, contending that the preliminary notification dated 25-6-1987 was issued proposing to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Sy.No, 109/1A measuring 6 acres 17 guntas of Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Thereafter, final notification was issued on 25-6-1988 and award has also been passed on 11-1-1989. However, possession, of the land of the petitioner has not been taken and therefore, the scheme has not been implemented in...

Dr. M. Chetana Vs. the Registrar, Karnataka State Open University, Mys ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR578

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J: 1. The 1st respondent - University issued a notification on 5.5.2007 calling for applications to the posts of Deputy Librarian alongwith other posts. The petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent applied for the post of Deputy Librarian. Interview letters were issued to both of them on 30.10.2007. The 3rd respondent is appointed on 22.11.2007 as per Annexure-D to the post of Deputy Librarian. Consequently, the petitioner was not appointed to the said post. The appointment of the 3rd respondent is called in question in this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent did not have requisite qualification of Ph.D degree and that he did not possess the equivalent research experience in the field relevant to the profession. Though the petitioner had taken up the contention in the writ petition that the 3rd respondent did not have requisite percentage of marks and experience as Assistant Librarian, the same were not press...

M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Vs. Stale Bank of India an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011AIR(Kar)130

Sabhahit, J. 1. These appeals are tiled by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called as ‘KSFC’ for short) - the first respondent in W.P. Nos.29679/09 and 30523/09 being aggrieved by the order dt. 26.10.2009, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the Writ Petitions by holding that the writ petitioner, is the first charge holder and the lust respondent-appellant herein is the second charge holder in respect of the property and having regard to the settled law that only after the claim of the first charge holder is settled, the balance amount has to be paid to the second charge holder and appellant herein would step into for realising the amount which is due to it Accordingly, set aside the order impugned in the Writ Petitions by order dt. 26.10.2009 pissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Banglore (hereinafter called as DRT for brevity) in AOR No.7/09. 2. The first respondent herein filed the Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the...

Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commissio ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This election petition is filed under Section 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951, praying to declare the election of the 5th Respondent to Karnataka Legislative Assembly from K R Pura Assembly Constituency as null and void and etc.) 1. Petitioner and Sri C Shashikantha, learned counsel for the respondent have been heard on acceptance or otherwise of the affidavit evidence sought to be placed before the court by the petitioner as her evidence to support the petition pleadings. 2. Sri C. Shashikantha, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised objections for accepting the evidence of the petitioner in the form of an affidavit and has submitted that the evidence of the petitioner should be necessarily deposed in person cannot be given in writing but can only be oral and such is the procedural requirement even under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] as contemplated in terms of Rules 4 and 5 or Order XVIII, reading as under: ORDER - XVIII HEARING OF THE SU...

C.S, Kumar S/O Sidde Gowda, Vs.The Station House Officer, Shivalli Pol ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner is accused No.1 in the case registered by the Shivalli police for the offences punishable under sections 498-A 302. 304-B. 201 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3. 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. The complaint allegations are that the deceased Shwetha was married to this petitioner in the year 2007 and there was dowry harassment and demand of jewellery and in this background, on 7.1.09. when the complainant along with his wife and others went to the house of the accused, the petitioner herein along with his other family members assaulted the deceased Shwetha and killed her. The complaint lodged by the father of the girl Shwetha therefore led to the case being registered as aforementioned.3. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, except this petitioner, all the other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this court and secondly, the prosecution case is that, the accused persons assaulted the deceased in front of the complainant and other memb...

Sri.K.Srinivas S/O Sri.K.Krishnappa, Vs. the Managing Director B.M.T.C ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard the learned counsel for claimant and perused evidence and impugned judgment. As per the wound certificate-Ex. P4 issued by Abhaya Hospital, the claimant had suffered following injuries:1) Cerebral contusion on the right frontal temporal region with extra dural hemorrhage2) Linear fracture of temporal bone3) Heamosinus in the left maxillary ethmoidal and frontal sinus of left side.3) The emergency case record issued by NIMHANS would reveal that conservative treatment was given to claimant to treat head injury. He was advised bed rest for a period of two months and to take certain medicines. Apart from this, no abnormalities are indicated. The claimant in addition to the above documents has produced discharge summary of Abhaya Hospital, wherein, the .same condition is reflected. The Tribunal due to paucity of evidence has awarded global compensation of Rs.35 000/- towards pain and suffering and injury and proba...

C. Chandrappa, S/O Late Chikkanna, Vs. State of KarnatakA. by Lokayukt ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard petitioner's counsel and also the learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the court below declining to allow the application filed for discharge and. referring to the impugned order, the submission made by the petitioner's counsel is that, there is no material to involve the present petitioner, who is said to be A-8, and his name is not even found in the F.I.R. nor is there any other material to show that this petitioner was also the beneficiary of the alleged bribe amount said to have been given by C.W.I, the complainant. In this regard, the learned counsel submitted that the trial court be directed to have a relook into the whole case and reconsider the contentions urged by the petitioner in the application filed for discharge.3. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for Lokayuktha is that the whole version clearly implicates all the accused persons and, being the police officials, they threatened the complainant on...

Nanjappa S/O Late Patil Shambulingappa, Vs. the Special Land Acquisiti ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Being not satisfied with the determination of the market value by the Reference Court, the appellant claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Mysore, dated 7th February 2005 passed in LAC No.241/IS9S.2. The facts in brief leading to this case are as here under: 2 acres 33 guntas of land situated in Talur village, Mysore Taluk, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Varuna Canal under the preliminary notification oated 10.8.1995. The L.A.O has determined the market value at the rate of Rs.33.000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the same, the claimant sought a reference. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .Before the Reference Court, the claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and he relied upon Exs.Pl to PI 4 and on behalf of the respondent Ex.R1 and R2 were marked. After considering the evidence let in by ...

Smt.Menasamma W/O Chikkagudiyappa, Vs. Smt. Padmavathi W/O T.Radha Kri ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of judgment and award in M.V.C.No.6681/2005 dated 2nd July 2007 on the file of M.A.C.T.. Bangalore.2. Claimant sustained grievous injury on 10.6.2005 while she was travelling in a maxi cab bearing No.KA-07/A-5099. When the said maxi cab reached Dimba gate, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said maxi cab. it dashed against the road side tree, as a result of which, claimant sustained grievous injury.3. The said claim petition was contested by the insurer, however, the Tribunal held that the claimant has proved the accident, actionable negligence and liability of the insurer and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 1.37,000/-.4. Claimant being unsatisfied with the said award has sought for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation?5. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate and Ex....

Smt.Radhamma D/O. C.Papaiah. Vs. B.N.Venkaiesh S/O Narayanasetty.

Court: Karnataka

1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of judgment and award in M.V.C.No. 14/2003 dated 24.11.2005 on the file of M.A.C.T. Chickballapur.2. Claimant suffered grievous injury in a road accident on 29.1 1.2002. She was proceeding on a scooter, when the scooter reached near Gundlagurki on Chickballapur-Dibbur road, a tempo bearing No.KA-1 1-2061 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said scooter, as a result of which, she fell down and sustained grievous injury. Towards medical treatment, she has spent Rs.30.000/- and alleged that, she was earning Rs.100/- per day. At the time of accident, she was 19 years old.3. The" said claim petition was contested by the insurer; however, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.32.672/-. There is no appeal by the insurer. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the claimant is entitled for enha...