Karnataka Court March 2011 Judgments

T.B. Udaya Shankar Aradhya, S/O. Late T.B. BasavaradhyA. Vs. Smt. T.U. ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 02/12/2006 passed in M.C.No.5/2000 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Tumkur.2. The appellant herein has filed a petition before the Court below under Section- 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a direction to the respondent to join his company by means of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or in the alternative, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, contending that, they are the husband and wife, (heir marriage was .solemnized on 30.6.1983 as per the i customs, out of the said wedlock, they got two children, namely, Shruthi and Seema and their second daughter Seema died on 16.3.1992 and first daughter is deaf. Further, it is the case of the appellant that, respondent is the daughter of his elder sister and he was working as a Lecturer in SIT, Tumkur. Due to differences of opinion between them, their relation was strained and respondent left her matrimonial home...

Smt K. Shashikala W/O Sri T.N.Shekar Babu. Vs. T.N.Shekar Babu S/O Nag ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The respondent in MC.No.6/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Tarikere has come up in this petition seeking transfer of the same to the family Court at Bangalore.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are: Petitioner/wife and respondent/ husband were married on 8.6.2005 at Bangalore. It is seen that after marriage matrimonial house was set up In Tarikere in a house belonging to the father of respondent. When the matter stood thus the father of respondent namely T.E.Rudrappa filed a suit in OS.No.7/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr Dn). Tarikere lor the relief of ejection of petitioner and respondent from the suit schedule property. It is seen that said suit is decreed and thereafter, petitioner and respondent were thrown out of suit schedule properly. At this juncture it is also stated by counsel for petitioner that besides the suit for ejectment her father-in-law had filed a original suit for the relief of injunction restraining the petitioner from entering in to his house....

B.Chinnaswamy, S/O. Late Basavarajaiah. Vs. the Management of Karnatak ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The controversy in this writ petition is to a decision of the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC),- transferring the petitioner from the post of Chief Accounts Officer & Financial Advisor (CAO & FA), Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), to the post of CAO & FA, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC), Hubli.2. The short resume of the case, relevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy may be stated thus:The State Government in exercise of the power conferred under S.3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') by issuing a Notification established the KSRTC with effect from 1.8.1961. The State Government established BMTC, NWKRTC & NEKRTC, with effect from 15.08.1997, 11.11.1997 and 15.08.2000 respectively. In terms of S.14, each of the Corporations has a MD and a CAO & FA appointed by the State Government. Section 17A(2)(d) provides that, subsidiary Corporation shall have a MD, CAO &...

Vijay Mallappa Muchandikar Vs. the Belgaum Urban Development and Anoth ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India is praying to quash the impugned order dated 27.7.2005 issued by R1/Buda vide Annexure-K and direct the first respondent/Buda to execute lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site No.896 of scheme No.40 measuring 50X80 fee and comply all other requirements and etc.) 1. The petitioner when allotted site bearing No.896 in BUDA scheme No.40 of Belgaum, measuring 50x80 ft. by respondent Belgaum Urban Development Authority, for short BUDA by letter dated 23/6/1998, Annexure ‘D’, indicating value as Rs.2,42,000/-, was called upon to pay Rs.60,500/- being 25% of the value within 15 days and the balance of Rs.1,56,500/- within 75 days thereafter excluding Rs.25,000/- paid as initial deposit. Petitioner paid Rs.60,500/- on 8/7/1998 and Rs.1,57,500/- on 8/9/1998. Despite the said payments duly acknowledged by the respondent, BUDA notice dated 27/7/2005, Annexure-...

B. Chinnaswamy Vs. the Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Co ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KantLJ27; 2011(3)KCCR225(SN); 2011ILR(Kar)2246

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying to quash the Impugned Order dated 19.1.2011, Annexure-F, in so far as the Petitioner is Concerned, holding the same as illegal, bad in Law and Arbitrary.) 1. The controversy in this writ petition is to a decision of the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), transferring the petitioner from the post of Chief Accounts officer and Financial Advisor (CAO and FA), Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), to the post of CAO and FA, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC), Hubli. 2. The short resume of the case, relevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy may be stated thus: The State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for shot ‘the Act’) by issuing a Notification established the KSRTC with effect from 1.8.1961. The State Government est...

Smt. Shakunthalamma Vs. Smt. Koushalya and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2395

(Prayer: This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 OF CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 30.06.2006 passed in RA.NO.30/2005 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (SR. DN.), Bellary, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgement and decree dated 18.01.2005 passed in OS.NO.562/2003 on the file of The III Additional Civil Judge (JR. DN.), Bellary.) 1. Second appeal by the first defendant in OS No.562 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Bellary, who, along with co-defendant - second defendant and mother of three plaintiffs in the suit - though was successful in defending the suit for declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession of the suit schedule property - an agricultural land measuring 2.79 acres comprised in Sy. No.179B of D Kaggal village, Bellary taluk, as the learned judge of the trial court dismissed the suit on the premise that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the property as absolute owners...

Sri Avinash. S/O Manje GowdA. Vs. the New India Assurnce Company Limit ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Claimant in MVC 3824/0/ on the tile of MACT, Bangalore city is the appellant in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as under' It is the case of the petitioner he along with P V Shival.umar. the claimant in the connected MVC 3824/07 were moving in a 2 wheeler bearing registration No.KA51 -J-1653. When they were near Kallugopalli on Mysore Bangalore road, the driver of the tractor bear registration No.KA-10-T-2982 has dashed against the petitioners vehicle. It resulted in road traffic accident.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was shifted to Subash Hospital Bidadi. for the pain suffering agony suffered by him on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident, seeks for compensation.4. Insurance company has filed objections deny the claim of the claimant Call upon the claimant to prove accident as the one pleaded. Add that the claim is exaggerated, plead for the dismissal of the claim application.5. PW1 examined in the claima...

S.Chandrashekar, S/O S.Subbarayudu. Vs.Mallika, W/O K T.Raju, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. Claimant in MVC 2978/2007 on the tile of MACT. Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (3CCH-10) is the appellant in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal are as under:It is the case of the claimant that on 12.03.2007 at about 1.15 p.m claimant was sitting on the Service Road near Bagalur cross, taking lunch, then the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. MED 868 belonging to the Respondent No.1 on account of the rash negligent driving by the driver has dashed against the petitioner. It resulted in claimant's both the legs receiving grievous injuries. On account of it, he was shifted to Colombia Asia Hospital. Yashoda Hospital Hyderabad. At Yashoda Hospital right leg was amputed. he has lost upper teeth, artificial teeth were fixed. There is a total disablement of the person as he is not in a position to many out his occupation as a driver of the vehicle. So pray for a compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs.3. Owner of the vehicle has filed objections co...

Sri B S Tiwari S/O Late Lakshmi Prasad Tiwaki. Vs. M/S Maruthi Insuran ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Claimant in MVC 2078/2005 on the file of MACT. Bangalore (SCCH-16), is the appellant in this appeal.2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are as under: It is the case of the claimant that on 26.08.2004 at about 8.30 p.m he was moving on the bicycle. When he was near Hoodi Farm road, the driver of the Maruthi vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-A-8860 has driven the Maruthi van rashly, negligently, dashed against the petitioner. It resulted in accident, petitioner was shifted to St.Johns hospital. Before the accident he was working as security guard at M/s. Harsh a. Wheel Movers Limited and was paid Rs.3,800/- p.m. So pray for a compensation of Rs. 20.00.000/- for the pair., suffering and agony, including the damage to the bicycle.3. Respondent No.1 - the Insurance Company has filed objections. It is contended in the objections that the liability of the petitioner is only if there is compliance of Sec.3, Sec.66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The policy is subject to the li...

K.Gopal, S/O. Kannappa Mudaliar. Vs. Smt. K.Navaneetha, W/O. K.Gopal.

Court: Karnataka

1. Though this matter is posted today for orders on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 6th December 2007 passed in M.C.No.968/2001 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, has presented this appeal, so far as it relates to awarding H .000/- per month to the respondent towards permanent alimony during her life and a sum of 71.000/- to the unmarried minor daughter until her marriage from the date of decree.3. The brief facts of the case are: The appellant and respondent are the husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized en 19.4.1991 at Bangalore, and out of the said wedlock. they got one female child who is affected by polio. Thereafter, due to some differences of opinion, they could not live together as husband and wife and respondent is now residing in her parental house. Be that as ...