Karnataka Court March 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.
Smt. MamathA. W/O. Late Shivanna, and ors. Vs. Sri. NanjegowdA. S/O. B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. This appeal by the appellants directed against the judgment and order dared 29/07/2004 passed in WCC 95/2002 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Tumkur-. (hereinafter- referred to as 'the Commissioner' for short).2. The Commissioner by I lie impugned judgment and order, has awarded a sum o f Rs. 3,94.120/- with interest at 12% p.a., from 11.9.2001. on account of the death of the deceased Sri.Shivanna in the accident.3. In brief, the facts of the ease are: The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Sri. Shivanna are not in dispute. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 being the wife and children of the deceased along with the mother of the deceased, have filed claim petition before the Commissioner, claiming compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, contending that, deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident, the only bread earner of the family and due to h:-= untimely death, they have undergone both financi...
Sri. Mohan. S/O.Nema Ram. Vs. Sri.P.R.Venu, S/O.Sri. P. V. Ravindranat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The appellant Sri.Mohan (Moha Lai), the respondent P.R.Venu and the learned counsel for the parties are present before the Court. They have filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w 151 of C.P.C, which reads as under:"Parties to the above suit have settled their dispute at the instance of well wishers and they have settled the matter as follows: The appellant and respondent submits as follows:1. The appellant and respondent have settled the matter. Respondent is the absolute owner of suit schedule property.2. The appellant/tenant has no objection to the respondent to withdrew the damages which has been deposited by him in a sum of ?.66,960/- before this Honble Court.3. The appellant has agreed to vacate and handover vacant possession of suit schedule property to the respondent within one year from today i.e.. en or before 10/3/2012.4. The appellant has agreed to pay damages at the rate of 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand live hundred only) per month, during his occupation of...
B.C.Krishnappa, S/O. Chikkathimmaiah. Vs. the Chief Traffic Manager, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The petitioner/workman was a driver in the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner at the time of entering to service with the respondent had produced a document / transfer certificate, bearing No.4/73-74, which when got verified through the Asst Security Inspector of the Corporation, it was reported that, it is a bogus one and hence, Articles of Charge dated 01.07.2003, accompanied with statement of imputations, list of documents and witnesses no sustain the charge was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a reply, which having been found to be not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered, by appointing Sri A.Krishnappa, Retd. District Judge as the Enquiry Officer. Two witnesses examined on behalf of the Management were cross-examined. The workman also gave his statement and filed written brief. Considering the material placed on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report, holding the charge as proved. Copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner along with a sho...
A. Ramakrishna Vs. State Government Rep. by the Secretary to Revenue D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
(These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-A dated 11.11.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 in withholding the 25% of the stamp duty remitted by the petitioner thereby direct the respondents to refund the 25% of the stamp duty withheld with 18% interest per annum from the date of remittance of the stamp duty till the date of payment, consequently direct the respondents to pay the entire amount of Rs.10,51,875/- with 18 % interest per annum from the date of remittance of the stamp duty till the date of payment to the petitioner and etc.) . In these writ petitions, petitioner is calling in question the Government Order No. KARNATAKA 2010 dated 11.11.2010 wherein a direction is issued to deduct 25 paise per rupee on the total amount of Rs.10,51,875/- paid as stamp duty towards registration of the sale deed while according sanction for refund of the balance amount to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that...
H.P. Moodalappa Vs. C.A. Chowrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 34387/2000 on the file of the 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2004, acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 2. The case of the appellant is that on 23.12.1997, the respondent accused has taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and in respect of the repayment of the said loan, accused has issued cheque dated 13.12.1999 for Rs.3,36,000/- and when the said cheque was presented for payment, the same was dishonoured on the ground that the funds lying to the credit of the accused in the said account is insufficient to honour the cheque and therefore, the said cheque was returned on 22.12.1999. Thereafter, when a notice under Section 138 of N.I.Act was issued on 30.12.1999, by Registered Post and under Certificate of Posting, despite service of notice to the accused, he neither paid the amount nor replied to the notice, thereby, he is liable to b...
M/S. Disha Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S. Srinivasa Minerals and Traders Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
(This CMP is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint Mr. Justice Shivashankar Bhat or any other arbitrator as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents and etc.,) This petition is filed under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arbitration Act’ for short) for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The main object of the petitioner-Company is to carry on international trade and business and is focusing mainly on the export of iron ore fines. According to the petitioner, it entered into a contract for sale and purchase of iron ore fines on 23.10.2005 on the assurance given by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent that they and ac...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. Kum. Ge ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
(This Appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 17.09.2010, passed in MVC No.2170/2007 on the file of the presiding officer, fast track court II and Additional MACT Belgaum at Belgaum, awarding the compensation of Rs.62,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. This Misc. Cvl. Filed under order XLI Rule 5 r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the judgment and award dated 17.09.2010 passed by the fast track court II and Addl. MACT, Belgaum, in MVC No.2170/2007, during the pendency of the above appeal.) If the learned Judges in the Supreme Court express doubt about their jurisdiction and are not sure of what kind of powers they have whether under the Constitution of India or under other Statutes, it does not become a law declared by the Supreme Court either within the meaning of Article 141 or a ratio...
Sri Ganesh K S/O Late B San KappA. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. This matter was heard on number of occasions, hithertobefore. We were prima facie not inclined to accept the maintainability of the filing of the instant writ petition wherein, the petitioner had assailed the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Bangalore, dated 23.3.2009 as. in our tentative determination, there was an efficacious, alternative remedy available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as also, in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.27943/2009 (and other connected matters, decided on 14.2.2011) in V.Premkumar and others vs The Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited.2, Be that as it may. during the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner informs us, that the petitioner has since died. He further states, that all efforts made by him, to ascertain the particulars of the legal representatives of the petitioner, ha...
Sri Singaraiah, S/O. HonappA. Vs. M/S. Hans Steel Wires.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. The petitioner/workman raised a dispute and the conciliation having failed, a reference under S.10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) was made to the Labour Court. Bangalore for adjudication. The Labour Court passed an award dated 20.3.2003, which was questioned by the respondent/management in W.P.53979/2003. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for disposal. The matter having been taken on board, the parties having adduced evidence, the Labour Court having found the reference to be untenable rejected the same and passed the impugned award. Workman has filed this writ petition, contending that the award passed by the Labour Court on 28.7.2008 is highly erroneous and jllegal.2. Petitioner has filed Misc.W.2112/2010 seeking permission to produce a document issued by the P.F.organisation on an application filed under RTI Act. The said document contains the name of the petitioner apart from others who were covered by...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Master Kiran. S/O Late Ku ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. As these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard, admitted and disposed of by this common judgment.2. These appeals are by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the award made by the Tribunal on the ground of liability.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: That on 4-7-07. when the deceased Indrc.mma and Revathi were travelling in a private car bearing registration No. KA-43-M-3000. near Basavanapura Gate, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent maimer and dashed against a road divider and caused accident and as a result, both of them died on the spot. Their L.Rs. have filed two separate claim petitions in MVC No. 241 and 242 of 2007. before the MACT. Ramanagar seeking compensation. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs.5.03...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »