Karnataka Court March 2011 Judgments
United India Insurance Company Ltd, and anr.Vs. Sri. ParasappA. S/O. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. As these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together, admitted and disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are:That on 24-07-08. when the deceased Kumari Netravathi @ Saritha was t ravelling in Maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-27-4354. the driver of the Maxi cab drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Her parents filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore, seeking compensation. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded them a compensation of Rs.5,00.000/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer has preferred MFA No. 5644/10 seeking reduction of compensation, whereas...
Tag this Judgment!Sri.T.Ranganath S/O Khadri Thippanna, and anr. Vs. Sri.Sameer Ahmed N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. We had directed Mr.M.U.Poonacha, learned counsel to take notice for respondent No.3-insurer on 21.3.2011. Copies are served. He is permitted to file power in the Registry in four weeks.2. Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.3. During the course of judgment, parties shall be referred to as per their tanking before the Tribunal.4. This appeal is by the claimants. The claimants are none other than the parents of the deceased. The deceased was 21 years old. He was working as claim executive with a Family Health Plan Ltd., and also was Basoning with the DGPs office. A. claim petition is lodged, by the claimants seeking compensation of 30,00,000/-for the death, of their son.5. The tactual matrix is that on 8.11.2007 at about 9.00p.m. the driver of the car bearing registration No. KA-05 MD 1005, of which the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer, drove the same in a high speed and in...
Tag this Judgment!Vulcan International Insurance Brokers. Vs. Nil.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Petitioner Company was incorporated on 18-10 1989 under Companies Act 1956 (for short Act) under the name and style of Vulcan International Insurance Brokers limited with the Registrar of Companies Karnataka at Bangalore and petitioner Company is having its registered office at No.29 and 30, II Floor, SNS Plaza, Kumarakrupa Road, Bangalore-560 001.2. The main object of the Company is to many on the business of Insurance broking which includes rendering consultancy to clients on Insurance matters, suggestive risk improvement, providing all matters required by insurers/clients in assessing risk and assisting in the negotiation of claims in accordance with and to the extent permissible under the provisions contained in the Insurance Regulatorv and Development Authority (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2002 under the powers conferred by IRDA 1999 and to carry on the business of soliciting and procuring general, life and health insurance business as brokers. The same has been described s...
Tag this Judgment!B S Balachandra S/O S Srikantaswamy. Vs. M/S D Gipro Design Automation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This appeal is filed by the eJatonant with reference to MVC No.319/04. The claimant is seeking enhancement. We notice that questioning the judgment and award in so far as actionable negligence is concerned, the insurer has accepted the finding. Hence in the circumstance we are required to consider only as to the compensation which is awardable to the claimant having regard to the nature of injury suffered by him. During the course of trial EX.P.8 the wound certificate was produced and the said wound certificate discloses the following injuries:(1) Fracture of shaft of loft femur.(2) Comminuted fracture displacement of perennial 2/3rd of right femur.(3) Fracture of head of left fibula.(4) Comminuted fracture with displacement of lower shaft of right tibia.(5) Ulcerated wound over the antero lateral aspect of right tibia.(6) Lacerated wound over the left tibia.2. The tribunal having regard lo the nature of injuries and the expertises incurred by the claimant for his treatment has dete...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Venkateshappa, S/O. Dajte Anjirna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This appeal is by the Insurer of offending vehicle challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.4. Brief facts of the ease as pleaded in the claimpetition are:That on 27.05.2008 when deceased Murty @ Narasimha Murthy was coming towards Bangalore from Chitradurga in a lorry bearing registration No: KA-12-666 as a cleaner near V.V. Puram cross at Hiriyur town on Hiriyur - Chitadurga road, another lorry bearing registration No. KA-07-7585 came from opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry in which deceased was proceeding, due to the said impact he sustained grievous head injures and succumbed to injuries on the spot. His parents arid grand mother filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.indirammA. W/O Late Mr.Nagasubramanian. Vs. the Commissioner of Po ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. In this writ petition, a direction is sought by the petitioner against respondent No.2 - Station House Officer. Hulimavu Police Station. Bannerghatta Road. Bangalore, to execute the order passed by the court below in M.A.No.51/201.0 produced at Annexure-A.2. Theorder is an ad interim order of ex-parte temporary injunction granted against the respondents therein restraining them from dispossessing the appellant from the suit schedule property and also from putting up any sort of further construction over the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing. 3. Alleging that in violation of the order of temporary injunction, the respondents were putting up const ruction, petitioner moved an application before the Court below under Section 151 CPC to direct the jurisdictional police 10 extend necessary aid in enforcing the order of temporary injunction. Based on the said application, the Court below has passed the order at Annexure-B on 28.01.2011 directing the concerned police to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.Sandhya Balasubramanian, W/O AshwIn Sundar. Vs. Mr. AsliwIn Sundar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the interim order of temporary injunction granted in O.S.No. 93/2009 by the I Additional Principal Judge. Family Court. Bangalore, vide Annexure-C. By. the said order, an exparte order of temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the respondent, husband of the petitioner directing that the child shall continue in the joint custody of both petitioner and the respondent.2. It is seen from the records that this Court has after hearing both the parties, passed an order on 09.06.2010 making it cleat that the minor child Ananya will be with her father on every first and third weekends of the month commencing from Saturday 10.00 a.m. till the next day i.e. Sunday 6.00 p.m. and that she will be with the father on every fourth Saturday of the month from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. This arrangement has been continued till the disposal of the writ petition. Thereafter on 26.1 1.2010. this Court has passed another order making it cle...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Y. G. Prakash S/O Sri. Gon I Basappa, and ors. Vs. M/S Karnataka P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Petitioners herein are said to be contractors discharging maintenance work. They participated in the tender called for by the respondent-Corporation and entered into an agreement having accepted the bid to carry out the maintenance work. Annexure 'A' - Nature of minor maintenance work to be carried out by contract agency under the supervision of Maintenance Engineer specifically provides for, general minor maintenance1) Cleaning of control room, battery and battery charger room, control panels, phone, panel indicating lamps, switchyard lighting or any other works assigned by the Maintenance Engineer.2) Cleaning of equipments like transformers, breakers, switchgears, CTs, PTs, G.O.S's battery terminals, chargers etc..3) Recording of battery reading such as voltage, current and specified gravity etc as directed by the Maintenance Engineer.4) To carry out minor works such as replacement of jumps, tightening of jumps at accessible height and loose connection. Drawing out and pushing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri. C.T. Prabhu, and ors. Vs. the State Bank of Mysore, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Heard Shri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner.2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-Bank. The respondent Bank had initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation of forgery. That was in the year 1986. Even prior to this a charge memo was issued against the petitioner on identical charges but no further action was taken. It was only during the pendency of the criminal case that disciplinary proceedings were recommenced. The criminal Court however acquitted the petitioner on the benefit of doubt while holding that the charges were not proved. In the disciplinary proceedings, the charges were held proved by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal on 23.7.1987. There was a remedy of appeal provided under the Regulations, which the petitioner did net opt to exercise. He waited till .the proceedings in the criminal case culminated in...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Udupi District. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. One M.Shiva Mahadeva (for short, 'the workman') is an Attender in the respondent - Bank, tie was issued with a charge-sheet on 7.4.2000. alleging that, the charged acts were prejudicial to the interests of the Bank. No reply was submitted to the charge-sheet. A domestic enquiry was ordered on 29.5.2000. On the basis of the enquiry report dated 30.9.2000, holding the delinquent guilty of the charges leveled against him in the said charge-sheet, Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice enclosing a copy of the said report and upon hearing of the charge-sheeted employee, finding that, there is gross misconduct by the employee in doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, imposed punishment, by an order dated 30.11.2000.2. The workman filed an appeal on 10 l.2001. which upon hearing was dismissed by an order dated 24.3.01. A dispute having arisen, the Government made a reference on 23.8.02, under S.10(1) qf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »