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.
M/S Roshini Electricals. Vs. M/S Mathaji Electricals.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Heard petitioner's counsel in respect of the challenge of judgments of the courts below. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I Act by the trial court and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.72.000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the said amount, the complainant was held to be entitled to compensation of Rs.71,000/-.2. Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was also dismissed by the lower appellate court by concurring with the view taken by the trial court.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments of the courts below. Though submission made by the petitioner's counsel is that, the complainant had agreed to give discount in respect of the goods delivered to the petitioner's place, yet the said discount was not given and this fact was not taken note of by the courts below.4. Having heard the aforesaid contention put forward and on going through the judgments of ...
D.Rathnam S/O Late P.Dhanaraj. Vs. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. There is delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.2. Claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident: that occurred on 2.1.5.2006. Claimant alleged that, he was working as a Supervisor and earning Rs. 15.000/- per month. Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,13,200/ . Unsatisfied with the said award, claimant is in appeal.3. Insurer has not challenged the award nor has disputed the liability. Hence the only question that arises for consideration is; "As to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"4. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate which disclosed that the claimant has suffered three fractures namely; i) Type I compound fracture of both the bones of M/3- L/3 right left, ii) Deep brusies right knee/leg. iii) Post-Traumatic hypovolemic stomach.5. Medical r...
Mr.Janardhana Acharva S/O Late Achutha AcharyA. Vs. Mr.Balakrishna She ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement, of compensation.2. I have heard Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for claimant and Sri Chethan, learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. As a result of accident, claimant had suffered following injuries.I. Abraded contusion measuring 4 cms x 4 cms over right side of bock of head II. Multiple small abrasions over back of right handIII. Abrasion measuring 3 cms x 2 cms over front of right kneeIV. Fracture of mastoid part of right, temporal boneV. Haemorrhagic contusion of right temporal lobeVI. Extra dural haematoma of right frontal regionVII. Sub-arachnoid haemorrhageThe claimant was treated in A.J.Hospital & Research Centre at Mangalore and he was an inpatient for one day. Subsequently, the claimant was under follow-up treatment. 4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.68.600/ under following heads:-1. Pain and suffering:Rs.40.000/-2. Medical expenses:Rs. 16.600/-3. Loss of income during treatmentRs.9 000/-period:4. Food, ...
Mr Chandresh Sheth. Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2 responded' to refund the penalty amount of Rs.3,01 025/- with interest thereon.2. According to the petitioner, he had effected inter-state purchase of goods of ceramic and porcelain tiles from Mumbai for the value of Rs.x54.7l2/- and Rs.5.60.193/- as per Annexures A and B. The said goods were intercepted near Hosur Road Checkpost. Bangalore. Thereafter, the consignee- petitioner was directed to confirm the transaction of inter-state purchase of the goods by order dated 31.07.2010. Petitioner is said to have furnished the explanation along with the required documents Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer. Hosur Road Check Post issued a notice under Section 531(2) of KVAT Act of 2003 on 01.08.2010 proposing to levy penalty of Rs.4,51,536/- to which detail objection has been filed: However, the officer has imposed a penalty by order dated 2.8.2010 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3.01 ,025/-, against which, an ap...
M/S. Lundbeck India Private Limited. Vs. Union of IndiA. Represented b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents - Union Government, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board. Director General of Health Services and also the Drugs Controller General of India, to notify and provide an opportunity to the pelitioner to substantiate the legitimacy of the drug Deanxit in treatment of psychogenic depression. depressive neuroses, marked depression and psychogenetic affections accompanied by anxiety and apathy.2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It. claims to be a fully owned subsidiary of H Lundbeck A/s, an international pharmaceutical company. It operates in 20 countries and is involved in developing effective educational programs that, aim to improve treatment and the quality of life for the patients and their families. Petitioner claims to be one of the reputed and fastest growing pharmaceutical companies in India. Since 1998. Lundbeck, it is urged has been marketing Deanxit, an anxi...
L. BalakrishnA. S/O. Lakkanna GowdA. Vs. the Secretary. Department of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Fire petitioner herein was granted a quarrying lease, permitting him to quarry ordinary building stone over an area of 6 acres failing in Sy. No.63 of Kanchanahalli village. Belluru Hobli, Nagainangala Taluk, Mandya District. Having been granted the aforesaid lease, the petitioner applied for installing a stone crushing unit, at the leased site, On 31.05.2006, the petitioner was granted a registration certificate by the Directorate of Industries, Mandya, allowing him to establish a stone crushing unit. On 08.09.2006 the Pontiff of Sri Adlchunehanagiri Mahasamsthana Math. Sri Adlchunehanagiri Kshetra. Naganiangala Taluk, Mandya District (respondent No.4 herein) addressed two communications, one to the Chief Minister of the Slate of Karnataka. arid die other, to the Minister of Tourism, with the prayer, that quarrying activities within the radius of 15 kms. of the premises of respondent No.4 should be banned. Acceding to the request made by the Pontiff of respondent No.4. it is submit...
Muniyappa @ Murali S/O ChengappA. Vs. State of Karnaiaka, by Bethamang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. The appellant arraigned as accused No. 1, along with his mother and younger brother arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. took their trial before the Principal Sessions Judge. Kolar in S.C.No.81/2005 lor the offences punishable under Sections 302. 504 and 114 IPC inter alia on the allegation that at about 11.00 a.m. on 22.5.2004. all the three accused persons intentionally insulted the deceased Krishna @ Kanda and his mother Smt.Indiramrna near their house in Hanumanthanagar. Bethamangala, Bangarpet Taluk and at that time, al the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3. accused No.i stabbed first Krishna @ Kanda with knife and when his mother Indiramma questioned accused No. 1 about his act of assault on her son Krishna @ Kanda. accused No.1stabbed her also indiscriminately with knife and thereby caused serious injuries to both Krishna @ Kanda and Indiramma to which both of them succumbed.2. According to the ease of the prosecution, the two deceased persons being the neighboured of accused p...
Smt.Sreelatha W/O Padmanabh @ Satish. Vs. the Managing Director B.M.T. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident that occurred on 3i.7.2004. Claimant sought for compensation of Rs. 10,00.000/ . however, tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.75.517/-. Unsatisfied with the said award, claimant ;s in appeal.2. Insurer has not disputed the liability nor has filed appeal against the Name. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is;"As to whether the claimant us entitled for enhancement of compensation ?"3. From the material on record it shows that, claimant had suffered fracture of left tibia and fibula. She has stated that, she was earning R.-.;.8.000/ per month, however, the said evidence has not been accepted. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25.000/ towards pain and suffering. Rs. 1.2 1,517/- towards rhedtcaj expenses. Rs.3.000/- towards incidental expenses, Rs.6.000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Rs 15.000/- towards loss of amenities. Rs.5,000/- t...
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Vs. Sri.Suresh S/O Ve ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. This appeal is by the APSRTC questioning the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.407/2002 dated 18.10.2007 on file of Addl. M.A.C.T. Kolar.2. Case of the claimant is that, on 11.4.1999. he was returning from old Bus Stand to his house on a bicycle, at that time, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP- 10/Z-4285 came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle of the claimant, as a result of which, he fell down and bus ran over the legs of the claimant, causing multiple grievous injuries, immediately the claimant was shifted to SNR Hospital and from there he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Claimant sought for compensation of Rs.9,00.000/-.3. The said claim petition was seriously opposed by the APSRTC interalia disputing the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus and also entitlement of the claimant for compensation.4. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded Rs.6.26.000/- by way of co...
Shivanna @ Shivegowda W/O ArasegowdA. Vs. Dharmegowda S/O Shivappagowd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. There is a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. Though contesting respondent is served and represented, no objections are filed. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.2. Respondent No. 1 is the driver of the vehicle. Hence, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident, that occurred on 30.3.2000. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.92.000/-. However, the claimant unsatisfied with the said award has filed this appeal.4. The insurer has not disputed the liability nor has questioned the award. Hence, the only question that requires to be considered is: Whether the claimant is entitled for additional compensation ?5. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained five simple injuries and one grievous injury i.e.. fracture of both bones of left leg and incomplete fracture of tibia of left leg. PW.2 - Doctor has assessed the disability at 15 to 20% to the left leg. On t...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »