Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments
Mr. Seth Ghanshamdas Shamlal, S/O. Late Gobindaram. Vs. Mr. R.G.Mallik ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. CMM at Bangalore in C.C.No.5265/1999 and the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in Cri.R.P.No.279/2010 by the learned Judge of the 4th Fast Track Court at Bangalore and also to quash the complaint filed in P.C.R.No.396/ 1997 on the file of the 2nd Addl. CMM at Bangalore.2. The immediate cause for the petitioner to approach this Court is the order passed in Cri.R.P.No.279/2010 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore on 03.12.2010 dismissing the Revision Petition filed against the order of the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate has passed an order on the memo filed by the complainant directing the parties to file memo of instructions for the guidance of the Handwriting Expert regarding the disputed document, which came to be challenged before the Fast Track Court. The learned Fast Track Judge has dismissed the Review Petition holding that the petitioner herein who is an accused before the Mag...
Tag this Judgment!S.Shashi Kumar S/O V.Shivraj. Vs. the Branch Manager the United India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Memo is filed for dispensation of notice to respondent No.2. Memo is taken on record. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.2. There is delay of 166 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of judgment and award in MVC No.5542/2004 elated 21.6.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.4. Claimant suffered grievous injury in a road accident that occurred on 16.8.2004. In this regard, claimant, has sought for compensation of Rs.8, 00, 000/. On assessment of the evidence on record, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,80.000/. Unsatisfied with the said award, claimant is in appeal.5. Insurer has not disputed the liability nor has filed the appeal. It is in these circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration is: "As to whether the claimant, is entitled for...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Fosroc Chemicals (India) Private Limited. Vs. the Deputy Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice.2. Heard.3. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is, the 2nd respondent instead of entertaining the matter, has passed the impugned order at Annexure T, which is erroneous. According to him, the matter relates to stock transfer, as such, the 2nd respondent ought to have entertained the appeal and passed an interim order, in stead, he has directed the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which is erroneous.4. According to the learned Government Pleader, In the case on hand, the Assessing Officer has opined that the assessing has not filed declaration under form 'F and that he has effected the sale of goods outside the State. The case falls within Section 6A(2) of the CST Act of 1956 and not under 6A(1) of the Act and it is an appealable order and appeal lies to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and it is not a matter to be entertained by the 2 respondent-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.5. At page ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Nagarathnamma W/O Late Nagaraju, and ors. Vs. Sri.Mohammad Altaf A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. There is inordinate delay of 4266 days in filing the appeal. 2. The respondents have entered appearance and have filed objections.3. In the affidavit filed in support of application filed for condonation of delay, it is stated tht the claimants did not notice the inadequacy in the impugned award. The claimants approached their counsel in the month of December'2009 and the appellants applied for certified copy on 10.12.2009, the copy was ready on 02.02.2010 and the same was delivered on 02.01.2010. The Tribunal while deciding the loss of dependency has taken the income of deceased at Rs.40/ per day and the appellants have got a good case on merits.4. The respondents have filed objections contending that, in the application the appellants have contended that they had applied for certified copy of judgment on 10.12.2009. which clearly demonstrates that the appellants have approached this Court after noticing the revision of multipliers in Sarala Verma's Case. There is no sufficient cau...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.Badrinath S/O Venkatararnanachar. Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Trans ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident that occurred on 19 10.2005. In this regard, claimant has sought tor Rs. 10,00, 000/- by way of compensation.2. Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- Being unsatisfied with the said award, claimant is in this appeal.3. Responded has not challenged the award. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is; "As to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ?"4..E.X.P8 is the wound certificate which discloses that, the claimant has suffered crush Injury on the left foot. He had dislocation of MTP joint, fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th toes, fracture of fibula and there is lacerated wound on the left sole. Doctor has staled that, there is 15% disability to the whole body, however, there is no loss of income by the claimant. Taking into consideration the tribunal has awarded Rs.35.000/- towards pain an...
Tag this Judgment!Pillamma W/O T.C.RajannA. Vs. A. Devendra S/O Arumugam, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. There is delay of 193 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are tiled. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.2. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect, o*' judgment and award in MVC No.3305/2005 dated 17.11.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.3. Claimant suffered grievous injury in a road accident that occurred on 20.3 2005. Tribunal on the basis of the evidence has awarded compensation of Rs.39, 000/-. However, claimant unsatisfied with the said award has filed this appeal. Insurer has not challenged the award.4. As per Ex.P15 wound certificate it discloses that, claimant suffered contusive head injury with mild cerebral edema. EX.P15 also disclosed that, it is serious in nature and oilier injuries are simple in nature. No doctor is examined except, the wound certificate. Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suf...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.ManjulA. W/O ChannabasappA. Vs. Additional Direetor General of Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. A notice is issued to the petitioner. President of the Town Municipal Council (for short, hereinafter referred to as TMC"), Hunsur, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell. Mysore, based on a complaint given by one Chandra Nayak, Member of the TMC Hunsur. alleging that the petitioner had obtained a false S.T. Caste Certificate and got elected on the strength of the said Certificate as the Member of the TMC. Hunsur. Petitioner was called upon to appear on 18.12.2010 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with necessary documents, failing which action would be taken as per Sections 174 & 175 IPC.2. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that .he said notice is issued without any authority of law at the instance of a person without any basis. It is the further contention of the petitioner that respondents 1 & 2 i.e.. the Additional Director General of Police. Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bangalore or the Deputy Superintendent...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. J.R.Vedavyasa Rao. Vs. the Superintendent of Police Motor Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of judgment and award in MVC No.3301/2003 dated 13.9.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore.2. Claimant suffered grievous injury in a road accident that occurred on 8.12.2002, In this regard, claimant, sought for compensation of Rs.4.00,000/-. However, tribunal on the basis of the evidence has awarded Rs. 1,09.200/-. Being unsatisfied with the said award, claimant is in this appeal.3. No appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the award. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is: "As to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?4. Ex.P12 is the wound certificate. It discloses the fracture of left humerus and there is wrist drop. Doctor has assessed the disability at 1.4% to the whole body, out of which, 4% disability is on the basis of the sear. Tribunal rightly deducted 4% and taken 10% disability and awarded compensation of Rs.10, 000/-towards p...
Tag this Judgment!Sri.Devegowda, S/O KalegowdA. Vs. P.Ganeshan S/O Patchmuttu, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Sri G.V.Narasimhamurthy, learned counsel for claimant and Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. As a result of accident, claimant had suffered dislocation of left shoulder joint and he was treated in Mangala Hospital. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 46 years and he was working as a driver of K.S.R.T.C. PW2-Dr. Abdul Basheer has assessed permanent physical disability of left upper limb at 20% as the claimant has not produced any document to prove disability has reduced his income and it would come in die way of pursuing his avocation as driver.4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.62.000/- under following heads:-1. Pain and suffering:Rs.20.000/-2. Medical & incidental expenses:Rs. 12.000/-3. Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life:Rs.5,000/ 4. Loss of income during laid up period:Rs.24.608/-5. Loss of amenities & enjoyment of life:Rs.5,000/-Total:Rs.61.608/- Rounded ...
Tag this Judgment!R.Kumar S/O P.Rangaswamy. Vs. the Branch Manager the United India Insu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Memo is filed for dispensation of notice to respondent No.2. Memo is taken on record. Notice to respondent No 2 is dispensed with.2. There is delay of 166 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.3. Tin's is claimant's appeal against the judgment and award in MVC No.5541/2004 dated 21.6.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore.4. Claimant sought for compensation of Rs.4, 00, 000/- however, the tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded compensation of Rs. 1, 70, 000/-. Unsatisfied with the said award, claimant is in this appeal. Insurer has not challenged the award.5. It is not in dispute that, the claimant has suffered grievous injury in the road accident such as fracture of right tibia and fibula, lacerated wound over the great toe of the right foot. In this regard, he has also produced wound certificate and discharge summary, x-ray. Doct...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »