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.
Smt.Anasuya W/O K.H.Lokesh, Vs. K.H Lokesh S/O HanumanthappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation,2. I have heard Sri Prabhakar L.Shetty, learned counsel for claimant.3. The claimant is the mother of deceased Srikantha and wife of I-respondent, who is the owner of Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Ne.KA~i4~L-2743. On 11.01.2003. at about 3.30 p.m.. Srikantha (since deceased) was riding Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.KA-14-L-2743 at a high speed, as a result he lost control and motor cycle dashed against road side electric pole and he suffered grievous injuries and he was admitted in Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga. On the same day, he succumbed to injuries. Therefore, claimant (mother of deceased) filed claim petition against owner of vehicle/I-respondent (husband of claimant) and insurer of vehicle. nB 04. The Tribunal noticing that claim petition was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 (for short, 'the Act') has dispensed with proof of negligence. The Tribunal has held that petition is filed under sec...
Sri. Abdul Aziz S/O. Late K Moosa Kunhi. Vs. the Managing Director Ksr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 07/08.05.2009 issued by the respondents as per Annexure H rejecting the claim of petitioner for promotion and revision of pay scale.2. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent - Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short The Corporation'). For misconduct of unauthorised absence enquiry was held and on 29.04.2004 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. 23/2004. The labour Court passed an award on 13.10.2006 in I.D. No. 23/2004 as per Annexure A and the operative portion reads as under: "The dismissal order at Ex.M.30 dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Divisional Controller. KSRTC, Koppal in No.322 (03) 2264 / 2004 is set aside. The II party KSRTC is hereby directed to reinstate the I party employee without back wages,...
Mr Syed Tajmal. Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, MandyA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. This petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 23.1.1.201.0 and 3.12.2010 at Annexures B and D issued by the respondent and also to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle bearing No.KA-19/MA-1777.2. According to the petitioner, he has submitted an application under Section 50(2) r/w Rule 57 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for transfer of ownership of the vehicle which he has purchased in an auction and has paid the life time tax for the said vehicle. According to him, the respondent- authority, instead of according permission, insisted upon the petitioner to pay the tax once again. Despite representation being made seeking for according permission explaining the circumstances, the respondent-authority directed him to approach the appellate authority in stead of passing any specific order on the detailed reply filed by him in respect of the query f...
Aqua Education Society ® Rep. by Its Secretary. Vs. Sri.M.inayathulla ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. This second appeal is by the defendant challenging the order of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Tumkur, in O.S.No.543/2002 dated 19.11.2005 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and also the order of the Fast Track Court No.1, Tumkur, in R.A. No. 106/2008 dated 8.10.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant and confirming the decree of the trial Court.2. According to the respondent-plaintiff, he had filed an HRC petition before the jurisdictional Court seeking for delivery of the vacant possession of the property in question. However pursuant to the amendment of the Rent Act, he has withdrawn the HRC proceedings filed and filed original suit No.543/2002 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Tumkur, for the relief of possession and for recovery of arrears of rent by way of mesne profits of Rs. 18,000/- and also damages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. According to him the suit property is a commercial building and he. being the owner of the suit property, had leased out the premises on...
M/S M D R Securities (P) Ltd and anr. Vs. Raj N Raj and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. I have taken up this appeal for final disposal with the consent of both the learned advocates.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2007 passed by the Court of the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, CCH-28 in O.S.No.4669/1997.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent Nos.1and 2 had deposited Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.35,000/- on 26.10.1996, Rs.35,000/- on 29.10.1996 and Rs.35,000/- on 29.10.1996) as the security amount for doing the business with the appellant Nos.1and 2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4.4. The respondent Nos.1and 2 stopped doing the business with the appellants and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and requested the appellant No.1to return the amount paid by way of security deposit. On the failure of the appellants and the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent Nos.1and 2 filed the suit for recovering the security deposit amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-, interest amount of Rs.24,452/- and notice charges of Rs.1,300/-. On defraying the amounts (Rs.3,116...
Ramesh S/O Narayana Rao Deshpande, and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. The petitioners have presented this public interest petition and have assailed the notification dated 26.12.2009 issued by the first, respondent by impugning the same at Annexure-J to the petition insofar as it declares Yadgir town as the head quarters of the new district consisting of the area of Yadgir, Shahapur and Shorapur Taluks. The petitioners have also sought for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the first respondent to declare Shahapur town as the headquarters of the new district and utilise the existing facilities and the government buildings which is presently with the second respondent.3. The brief facts are that the newly formed Yadgir district was carved out of Gulbarga district by including Yadgir, Shahapur and Shorapur Taluks as part of Yadgir district. Yadgir was also chosen as the new headquarter and the notification dated 26.12.2009 as at Annexure-J came to be issued. Though several details with regard to the manner in which the said decision was a...
Thippcsvvamy S/O M E Erappa @ Chitrahalli Veerappa, and anr. Vs. C E Y ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn). Chitradurga in RAs 69 and 73 of 1996 on 4.10.2002.A suit was tiled by the plaintiffs against the defendants who are brothers of the plaintiff i.e. Defendants 2 to 4 are the brothers and IS' defendant is the lather. According to the plaintiffs', the suit schedule property is ancestral property and was in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiffs have 1/3rd share as co-parceners. The P' defendant being addicted to vices, sold the property OP 10.5.1982 in favour of the 6th defendant. The plaintiffs along with defendants 1 to 4 is in joint possession and enjoyment. Ii is stated, the 1st defendant had not executed the sale deed in favour of the 6 defendant for family necessities nor for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs as such, contending that the sale deed is a -ham and not binding and it was not executed for legal necessities, plaintiffs sought for decreeing the suit for parti...
N R Shyamapriva D/O Late N C Rangacharlu. Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. The petitioner, on the basis of alleged ownership rights, claimed alternative site, after the site owned by her came to be acquired. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the process of acquisition commenced, with the issuance of the preliminary notification dated 28.05.1984. The said process attained finality, with the issuance of the final notification on 23.10. 1986.2. Even though no alternative site was granted to the appellant, the appellant waited till 2004 before approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.32929/2004 wherein he raised a claim, for grant of an alternative site, for the first time. The appellant's claim was, however, declined by a learned Single Judge on 08.02.2005with the dismissal of the W.P.No.32929/2004. It would be relevant to mention, that the learned Single Judge did not consider the claim of the appellant, on merits; as the aforesaid writ petition was, dismissed for reasons of delay and laches alone.3. The instant writ appeal has been filed;...
Basappa, S/O.Late HadadibasappA. Vs. Hadadihanumanthappa, S/O Late Bas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Decrees of the - -Courts below, granting declaration that the Sale' Deed dated .24.12.1991 is null and void and for injunction and confirmed in the appeal, before the lower, appellate Court in R.A. No. 5/2003.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are, as under: I will refer the parties as per the rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The appellant is defendant No.1, whereas the' respondents are plaintiff Nos.1and 3 and defendant No. 2 respectively before the trial Court. The 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the brothers, whereasthe2Mplaintiffisthewifeof St the 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 3 to 6 are their children. The 2nd defendant is the son of.' the 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there was a partition between plaintiff No.1.and defendant No.1 in the year1973and the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiffs-...
Sri.Mohammed @ Mohammed Aneef S/O Malik Khan. Vs. Sri.ilyaskhan.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. Claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, in. WCA/NFC/CR-21/1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Appellant, who is claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, was working as driver in lorry bearing registration No.CAS-7875 under respondent No. 1. The relationship of employer and employee between the claimant - appellant and respondent No. 1 - owner is not in dispute. It is also not. in dispute that on 07.05.1994 claimant; while driving the lorry bearing No.CAS-7875 from Hyderabad to Bangalore met with an accident near Kurnoel between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m., on that day. In the said accident, he suffered injuries to his head, neck and also second vertebra of his neck. The fact that initially lie took treatment in Government Hospital, Kurnool mid thereafter he was shifted to Bangalore and he und...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »