Karnataka Court April 2011 Judgments
inthiyas Alias Inthiyas Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 9.6.2004 passed by the Fast Track sessions Court III Bangalore City in SC No.302/03 convicting the appellant for the offence u/Ss. 489(B) and 489(C), IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/S.489(B), IPC and further sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.2500/- for the offence punishable u/S.489(C), IPC with default clauses. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused was found in the City Railway Station, Bangalore, near the ticket counter and was trying to circulate fake currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and was in possession of a suitcase containing 146 fake currency notes. Hence he was charged for having committed an offence u/S.489(B) and (C) of IPC. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and produced M.Os.1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of tota...
Tag this Judgment!Sriramegowda Vs. the Housing and Urban Development Department, Bangalu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
J.S. Khehar, C.J. 1. Respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 26.06.2004 to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter called as ‘BMP’), offering to construct 10 “foot over-bridges”. The issue came to be discussed by the Standing Committee of the BMP, on 23.08.2004, whereupon the matter was placed for the approval of the Urban Planning and Development Standing Committee. The said Committee approved the construction of the “foot over-bridges”, on 23.08.2004. Thereafter, in terms of the norms of the BMP, the issue was placed for consideration before the Taxation and Financial Standing Committee, which also accorded its approval on 06.09.2004. Eventually, the matter came to be considered in a meeting of the BMP itself on 14.10.2004 wherein, the Mayor of the BMP placed the matter for its approval. The issue was put to vote. The matter came to be approved at the meeting of the BMP on 14.10.2004. 2. A public notice inviting an expression of interest for ...
Tag this Judgment!AmeeruddIn S/O Maktum HussaIn Kodakaeri Vs. Hussainsab S/O Imamsab Hak ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
(This Appeal is filed u/s 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 passed in R.A.No.151/2004 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Bagalkot, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2004 passed in OS.No.130/1994 on the file of the civil judge (JR.DN) Hungund.) 1. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal, who, sued for a mandatory injunction for removal of some structure in the form of a bathroom and latrine constructed by a neighbour-defendant, for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject land and for further consequential injunction. Suit dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. 2. Immovable properties have the knack of getting compatible with persons who start enjoying it. A true owner, if abandons the property allowed to be occupied by all and sundry and wakes up like a Rip van winkle long after, and starts howling that his property has been occupied by some strang...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director Kptcl and anr Vs. Rangaswamy Son of Jawaraiah an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. This matter had come up on 12.04.2011. On that day, arguments were heard on behalf of the appellant regarding Misc.Cvl.945/2911 filed seeking condonation of delay of 907 days in filing this appeal. On going through the Affidavit filed in support of the application, this court was not satisfied with the explanation that was given for condonation of the inordinate delay of 987 days, which is nearly 3 years. Therefore, an opportunity was given to the appellant to file better Affidavit to state the reason for such inordinate delay.2. However. ;is usual, like any other Government organisations, the appellant herein is also not diligent in pursuing this appeal. Though this court called upon the appellant to file better affidavit explaining proper reasons for delay in order to fix the responsibility on the delinquent Officers for causing such delay. The order of this court dated 12.04.2011 for filing better Affidavit is ignored.2. When such being the ease, this court find that there is no ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sky Gourmet Catering Private Limited Vs. the Assistant Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the learned single judge who declined to entertain the Writ Petitions and has advised the assessee to prefer an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal without going into the merits of the case. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter for short referred to as the ‘KVAT Act’). The assessee is engaged in the business of catering services, which includes preparation and supply of food, beverages and other eatables. The major customers for the appellant are M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Limited, M/s. Jet Airways Limited and M/s. Deviyani International Limited. The assessee has entered into catering agreements with its customers for preparation and supply of meals of various varieties and other food items including beverages and dry stores. Under the agreement the assessee has agreed to render supply services, lik...
Tag this Judgment!National Highway Authority of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
(W.P.No.25050/2010 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the supplementary award dated 27.01.2010 as per Annexure-A.) 1. The National Highways Authority of India has filed these batch of writ petitions challenging the supplementary awards passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Competent Authority, NH-4 (Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangalore Section), Kolar. 2. Respondent No.1 is the competent authority appointed by the Central Government for the purpose of carrying out the duties and functions pertaining to acquisition and determination of the amount payable as compensation in accordance with the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), for the relevant stretch of National Highway No.4 in Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangalore Section. 3. A notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3D of the Act came to be issued on 14.11.2007 acquiring various lands belonging to different owners who are arrayed as party respondents in th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. K.R.Partha, S/O. RamegowdA. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 22/11/2007 passed in MVC No. 8750/2006 on the file of the JX Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-7). (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.79,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against the claim made by the appellant, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant is claiming that he was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident, hale and healthy, working as Driver and getting the income of Rs.5,000/- per month. That at about 8.30 p.m., on 20.09.2006, when the appellant, was standing by the side of the road near Old Bank Colony, Konanakunte, at that time, the driver of the car bearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthl, S/O. Thippaiah, Vs. Smt. H.Siddalaxmi, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. This appeal by the appellant-claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 25/10/2007 passed in MVC No 2534/2006 on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 1.54, 400/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of ?5.00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant is claiming that lie was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident, hale and healthy, working as Supervisor and getting the income of ?5,000/- per month. That at about 8.35 p.m.,on 30.3.2006. When the appellant was crossing Mathikere road near BEL Signal junction and about to reach footpath, all of a sudden driver of a Maxicab bearing No.KA. 18.6060 came with high speed...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. K.R.Partha, S/O. RamegowdA. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co..
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. This matter had come up on 12.04.2011. On that day, arguments were heard on behalf of the appellant regarding Misc.Cvl.945/2911 filed seeking condonation of delay of 907 days in filing this appeal. On going through the Affidavit filed in support of the application, this court was not satisfied with the explanation that was given for condonation of the inordinate delay of 987 days, which is nearly 3 years. Therefore, an opportunity was given to the appellant to file better Affidavit to state the reason for such inordinate delay.2. However. ;is usual, like any other Government organisations, the appellant herein is also not diligent in pursuing this appeal. Though this court called upon the appellant to file better affidavit explaining proper reasons for delay in order to fix the responsibility on the delinquent Officers for causing such delay. The order of this court dated 12.04.2011 for filing better Affidavit is ignored.2. When such being the ease, this court find that there is no ...
Tag this Judgment!Priyanka Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
Govindarajulu, J 1. The claimants in MVC Nos.8553/06, 8551/06 are the appellants in these two appeals. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 13.5.06 at about 5 P.M. they were travelling in a car, then the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-B-6609 has dashed against the car, it resulted in road traffic accident. For the pain and agony suffered by them, they have filed the claim applications seeking compensation. 3. The Insurance Company has filed objections, deny the accident, call upon the petitioners to prove the accident, its impact. Contend that the claim is exaggerated. Plead for dismissal of the claim application. 4. The case of these claimants are heard along with the connected claim applications and a common order is passed. 5. MFA No.8445/2008: The claimant in MVC No.8553/06 is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant is a minor and her father is examined as PW4, the doctor who has certified the disability of the minor is examined as PW5. The Learned Member ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »