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.
Divisional Manager. the New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Smt A. M. Soub ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. This appeal is by the insurer. It is an extremely pathetic case, where we find the respondent/claimant met with an incident. The resultant effect is that, she has become paraplegic.2. The case of the claimant/respondent is that on 7.6.1996 at about 8.45 pm, the claimant along with others were on their way back to Bangalore after visiting Yediyur temple in the tempo bearing Regn.No.CAA-791. Near Binnamangala on NH-4. a lorry came from hind side in a rash and negligent manner hit the tempo, the tempo capsized and the claimant suffered serious injuries to her spinal cord which has resulted in breakage as well as vertibra. She was admitted to the Peenya Hospital in the first instance from 7.6.1996 to 10.6.1996 and got discharged from the hospital as she could not meet the expenses of the hospital. Then she got treatment at a private clinic for about a month. Thereafter, she was admitted to ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, On account of the accident, as observed , her spinal cord go...
Kavitha D/O Walchand DhokA. Vs. Mukesn Mutha S/O Madan Raj.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Legality and correctness of the judgment and decree granted by II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dated 26.9.2008 in MC No.1395/05 is called in question by the appellant herein.2. The aforesaid petition was filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty. According to him, marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 17.1.2001 and that the parties lived together happily only for a period of 4 months and thereafter appellant-wife went to her parents house where she stayed for a period of 15 days and later she came and informed that she is not interested in coming to matrimonial home on account of the respondent's family members suspecting her in regard to missing of gold jewellery and she used to pick up quarrel and she is a quarrelsome lady. In the month of January,2002, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was missing in the house of the respondent and the appellant-wife without informing the respondent-husband has left the house. At that time, she was pregnan...
Francis D, S/O David. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. The claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. The claimant has filed claim petition under suffered by the claimant are that there is supra condylar Section 166 of the MV Act. seeking compensation of femur with inter condylar extension and Rs.4.5 lakhs for the injuries suffered by him. The injuries type-1 open fracture right leg BB mid 1 /3rd. We notice that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on 26.7.2000 and under went DCS operation for the fracture of right femur with bone grafting and interlocking nailing for right tibia on 31.7.2000. He was discharged on 3.8.2000 and readmitted on 4.8.2000 for physiotherapy and ultimately discharged on 10.9.2000. We notice that the claimant was working as a computer operator in BPL Insofar as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding. Indeed, the negligence is attributable to the driver of the vehicle. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the learned member of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.55.0...
Smt. Bharathi @ Vaisiinavi D/O Late Pundalika Shenoy. Vs. K. Rajendran ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, in G & W.C.No.45/2004.3. The appellant is the wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnised on 7.7.1995, out of the wedlock, they have two children namely Parnali & Indudar and they were born on 17.4.1996 & 22.2.1999 respectively. The appellant and the respondent are living separately on account of the divorce granted by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.). Mangalore and since then the children are tinder the custody of the appellant herein. The respondent filed the aforesaid petition for custody of the minor children on the ground that the appellant herein is not financially sound and she is unable to take care of the interest of the minor children. The same was opposed by the appellant. According to her. ...
Basha Sab S/O Gudu Sab, and ors. Vs. M.N.Ganesh S/O Narayansa Meharwad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Misc.Cvl.9833/2009 is tiled for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the LRs. of deceased. Misc.Cvl.9834/2009 is filed for bringing the LRs. of the deceased appellant. Mise.Cvl.9835/2009 is filed for selling aside the abatement order against the deceased appellant.2. Deceased appellant claimant filed the MVC No.268/2005 seeking compensation of Rs.6.00.000/- for the injury suffered in a road accident. Case of the claimant is that, he was walking on Old P.B.Road. near Bank of Maharastra, Harihar at about 8.30 a.m. on 7.6.2005. At that time, motorcycle bearing No.17/S 2804 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result of which, he suffered grievous injury and he was admitted to the C.G. Hospital. Davangere between 7.6.2005 to 21.6.2005. Tribunal considering the evidence produced by the claimant found that the claim is false claim and rejected the claim petition. As against which, the claimant filed this appeal. However, during the penden...
U.Krishnan. Vs. Syndicate Bank Raichur Branch, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 31.10.2005. In assaiiing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced only one contention, namely, that the guarantee executed by the petitioner, was not enforceable as against the petitioner under the law of limitation. While disposing of the instant writ petition, we shall adjudicate upon the instant solitary contention advanced at the hands of the petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the nature of the guarantee executed by the petitioner, as also the various initiatives adopted by respondent-Syndicate Bank to recover the amount from the principal debtor, as also, the petitioner herein, it is necessary to notice a few facts. In this behalf, reference deserves to be made in the first instance, to the letter of guarantee dated 26.12.1981 executed by the petitioner. Clauses (1), (2) and (9) of the aforesaid letter of guarantee dated 26.12.1981 are relevant for t...
Anitha @ Geetha W/O M.NagarajA. Vs. M.Nagaraja S/O Late Muni-budappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dated 21.12.2006 passed in M. C .Nc.1426/2005 is called in question in this appeal.2. Appellant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent Petition was filed by the respondent to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. According to the respondent, marriage between him and the appellant was solemnized on 10.12.2001 at Akkayamma Betta, Kalikamba Temple, Uttanahalli, Bangalore North Tauk and thereafter they lived together at Yelahanka for a short period. According to him, respondent has been living separately without any cause from 23.5.2002 and during her short period she has humiliated the respondent and tortured him and his family members. Therefore, on these two grounds, petition was filed.3. Appellant-wife was placed ex-parte since she did not contest the case inspite of receipt of notice from the Family Court. Family Court, recording the evidence of PW-l/husband/...
Sri K R Revanasiddappa S/O Srik RudrappA. Vs. the Superintendent Engin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. This Writ Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.25343/2002 dated 22/2/2005. Through the instant writ appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.2.2005. where by, Writ Petition No.25343/2002 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The controversy, which is subject matter of consideration in the instant writ appeal, pertains to charging of penal rent from the appellant for failing to vacate the quarters allotted to him by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed, that insofar as the issue of charging of penal rent is concerned, the same is regulated by Regulations 38.01 and 38.02 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Accounts Manual, Volume-I The aforesaid Regulations, along with the notes there under, are being extracted hereunder: "38.01 LEVY OF PENAL RATES OF RENT IN CASES WHERE THE OFFICIAL DO NOT VAC...
Smt.Hasnath Mansur. W/O Hassan Mansur. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. Rep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to pay her the salary for the period from February. 1997 to September, 1998 along with interest. Dining the aforementioned period, petitioner claims to have worked as a Member of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') having been duly nominated as such. According to the petitioner, though she has discharged her duties as a Member of the Commission for a period of 20 months during February. 1997 to September. 1998. she was not paid any salary for the service rendered by her.3. Petition averments reveal that she was not paid salary on the ground that the Government had not made any provision for payment of salary to the Members of the Commission. It is her further ease that on 22.09.2009. she made another request for payment of salary to which she was informed by the 2nd r...
Y T Venkataramanappa S/O Thamishetty, and ors. Vs. the State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Sri. K.M. Eswarappa, Advocate for the petitioners. Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned Additional Government Advocate I for the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment rendered by this Court in Golayya vs. The State of Karnataka and others, W.P.No.80817/2009 (GMMMS), decided on 02.06.2009.3. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the respondents states, that if the petitioners produce authentic material before respondent No. 2 showing that royalty was paid in respect of the sand being transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from whom the petitioners had purchased the sand, the respondents would refund the royalty charged from the petitioners.4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to produce material before the concerned respondent No.2. depicting that royalty had already been paid by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand which was purchased by the petitioners. On production of su...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »