Karnataka Court February 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.
L.G.Malathesha S/O L.G.GuddapA. Vs. Smt Mamatha W/O L.G.MalatheshA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Civil Judge. (Sr.Dn.). Sorab, Dated 10.2.2009 in M.C.No. 1/2007 is called in question in this appeal.2. The appellant lodged a petition for a grant of decree of divorce under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground that the respondent/wife is having an illicit relationship with one Devaraj who is residing opposite to the house of the appellant, The respondent denied the allegations made in the petition. She also contended that without impleading Devaraj as a party, the petition was not maintainable. Therefore, she requested the Court to dismiss the petition.3. Based on the above pleadings, the following points were framed by the Court below.4. On behalf of the appellant, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W1I is none ether than the appellant. He relied upon Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent was examined as R.W. 1. The trial Court after considering the evidence let m by the parties, held point Nos.1 t...
Sri Pramod Gowda @ Pramood. Vs. State by Girinagar Police Station.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of bail sought by the petitioner who is one of the five accused pet sons against whom case is registered in or.No.3/ 11 for the offence punishable under sections 399 and 402 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that:, on 2.1.11 information was received to the effect that some persons were making preparations to commit dacoity and accordingly the complainant went near Manjunatha temple and caught hold of A-2 to A-1 and seized certain materials from them and case was registered suo moto by the complainant3. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, other accused persons A-2 to A-4 are already released on bail by the trial' court and on the same ground, petitioner also be released on bail.4. Having gone through the order of the trial court in respect of bail granted to the other accused persons mentioned above, I am of the view that this petitioner also can be released on bail on the same terms and conditions and hence I pass the following...
B.C.Saviniri W/O Late Sri.Manje Gowda, and ors. Vs. K.Gopal S/O Sri.Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. All these four appeals are disposed of by this common order. Two appeals arc by the claimant-seeking enhancement and the two appeals are by the insurer seeking reduction. Indeed two claim petitions were filed in MVC Nos.3638 and 3639/1990. M.F.A. No. 1768/2005 would relate to MVC 3638/1999 and M.F.A. No. 1770/2005 would elate to MVC 3639/1999. The appeal of tire insurer would relate to both these claim petitions i.e. M.F.A Nos. 1654/2005 and 1655/2005.2. The facts can be summarised as follows: Two claim petitions are filed seeking compensation in respect of the death of one Manjegowda, who happens to be the husband and father of the claimants in MVC 3639/1999. The accident occurred on 19.04.1999 at about 9.45 a.m. on the National High Way 48 near Kallahalli. Sakleshpur Taluk. According to the claimants, the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent, driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the lorry.3. On service of notice all the respondents i.e., the. driver...
Smt.Sharadamma @ Shadamma W/O VenkatappA. Vs. B.Shivakumar S/O C.Balar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Smt.K.Veena - learned counsel for claimant and Smt.Bhavya. teamed counsel for Sri .M.V. Poonacha learned counsel for insurance company.3. As a result of accident, the claimant had suffered following injuries: 1) Lacerated wound on medial border of the left foot extending up to greater toe measuring 3x2cms.2) Lacerated wound on the left: web face measuring 2 x 1 cm3) Laceration extending from left web face to the lateral border of the left foot measuring 3 x 1cm.4) Suspected fracture of 5th metatarsal bone.4. At the lime of accident, the claimant was aged about 65 years and she was sustaining by manual work. Apart from producing the wound certificate, the claimant has not produced the case record, discharge summary arid not examined the Doctor who treated her. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs. 15.000/ -.5. The Tribunal has failed to notice that the claimant was aged about 65 years at the tim...
R.Sridhara, S/O Late Ramaiah. Vs. S.V.RamachandrA. Major S/O Venkatapp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. There is delay of 370 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.2. Claimants appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident that, occurred on 31.7.2005. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.48.000/- with interest. However, claimant unsatisfied with the said award has filed this appeal.3. Facts which are not in dispute are that; in the said accident claimant had suffered comminuted fracture of radius, comminuted fracture of condyle of tibia and fracture of chip of patella. Doctor PW2 has been examined in this case. He has stated that, there is disability of 17% to the whole body. However, the tribunal has found that there is no evidence as regard to the loss of future income. On the other heads tribunal has granted Rs.35.000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25.000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.59.000/- towards medical expenses. Rs.5....
P.Priya W/O C.K.Venkatesh, and anr. Vs. Geetha Subramaniam W/O C.N.Sub ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Legality and correctness of the order passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 13.6.2006 passed in Exc. No.2420/2002 on I.A.13 is called in question in this appeal.2. One Geetha Subramanyam R1 herein obtained a decree from the State Consumer Forum against M/s Fine Home Property Developers and others to recover a sum of Rs.69,43, 200/-. Execution petition was filed by the D.Hr. and obtained an 70, 17 Cross, Ward No.7, Malleswaram, Bangalore on the ground that the said property is owned by M.V.Srinivasan J.Dr.No.5. Aggrieved by the order of attachment of the aforesaid property,- an application was filed under Order-21 Rule 58 of CPC by the applicant as well as the objector who were appellants herein on the ground that they are the owners of the property and the said property could not have been attached in Execution Petition as 5th J. Dr. was not the owner of the property on the date of attachment. The order of attachment was made on 3.8.2004. Learned Judge...
Sri Adi Shankaracharya Seva Samiti. Vs. the State of Karnataka Pep. by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. The instant review petition emerges from an order passed by the Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal No.1139/2004 dated 12.08.2010. The order dated 12.08.2010 is being extracted hereunder: 'Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is factual error in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. In our considered view, the proper remedy of the appellant would be to approach the High Court by filing a review-petition. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to file a review petition before the High Court within six weeks. If the appellant files a review petition within six weeks from today, the High Court may condone the delay in filing the review petition. Status quo to continue for a period of six weeks from today."2. It is therefore apparent, that the appellant before the Apex Court, who has filed the ins; ant re view-petition asserted, that there was a factual error in the ...
Umesh, S/O SiddappA. Vs. M/S.Ortarital Ins. Co. Ltd, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement: of compensation.2. I have heard Sri.Spooithi Hegde, learned counsel for claimant and Si.B.S.Cmesh, learned counsel for insurance company. I have been taken through the evidence and impugned judgment.3. The claimant has contended that he had suffered fractures of left radius and ulna. At the first instance, he was treated in District Hospital at Chitradurga. Late he was admitted in Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre at Chitradurga. The fractures were reduced by open reduction and internal fixation. The Claimant has produced the bills as per Ex.P6 to P24 to show the amount spent towards medical expenditure. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50.000/- under the following heads:I Pain and suffering, mental agonyRs.20,000II Medical, attendant & nourishment ChargesRs. 5,000III Loss of income during laid up period - Rs. 6,000IV Loss of amenitiesRs. 5,000V Loss of future income due toDisability- Rs. 13,600TotalRs.4...
H S Suresh S/O. SiddappA. Vs. H H Gangamma D/O HanumappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Kadur, in M.C.NO.5/2004 dt. 25.2.2006 is called in question in this appeal.2. The respondent filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the marriage between the appellant and her was solemnized in the year 2002 at Kalmurudeshwara Mutt in Sakharayapatna village in the presence of the elders and that they lived together as husband and wife for one year and thereafter the appellant herein has discarded without any reason or rhyme. Therefore she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.3. The appellant herein filed the objection denying the very marriage solemnized between him and the respondent and it was also contended that considering their relationship, the appellant and respondent cannot marry each other as they are the children of the brothers and sisters.4. In order to prove their respective contentions, petitioner examined herself as PW1. She also reliea upon the ev...
Smt. A.G. Renuka W/O Late K. MaheswarappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. By the orders at Annexures-F and J, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected. The said orders are called in question in this writ petition.2. The records reveal that the petitioner's husband was a Lecturer in respondent No.5 - college. He died while in service on 31.5.1999 and the petitioner being widow of the deceased, filed application on 7.7.1999 before the 5th respondent praying for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was forwarded to respondent No.2 through respondent No.4, which ultimately culminated in the impugned orders.3. As on the death of the husband of the petitioner, there was no sanctioned Group-C or Group-D post which was available to be filled up on compassionate grounds. However, such vacancy arose in the year 2001. But in the meanwhile, a Government Order came to be issued on 1.3.2001 prohibiting further appointments because of economy measure. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for appointment on compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »