Karnataka Court April 2011 Judgments
Mohan Krishna Shetty, Uttara Kannada District and Another Vs. Dinakar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
(Prayer: This election petition is filed u/s 81 of the representation of people act, 1951 by the petitioner – candidate to the Kumta election, to the Karnataka legislative assembly from 78-kumta legislative assembly constituency at the election held on 16.5.2008 praying to(i) Declare that the declaration made by returning officer, as contained in annexure – ‘a’ declaring the first respondent as the returned candidate, as void on ground of sec 100 (d) (iii) and (iv) of representation of the peoples act, 1951 and etc.)1. This petition is filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) challenging the election of respondent No.1 to the Kumta Legislative Assembly Constituency – 78, Uttara Kannada District (hereinafter called ‘the Kumta Constituency’) seeking for the following reliefs:-“I. Declare that the declaration made by the Returning Officer, as contained in Annexure ‘...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. S. Hari Kumar. Vs. Sri. Venkataramana S/O. Narayanappa, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC JVo.4707/2002 dated 21.6.2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'). The appellant was the petitioner-claimant in the claim petition before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the respondents before the Tribunal. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant was aged 41 years at the time of the accident. He was working as a sales representative with Travancore Cements Ltd. He was earning ?. 7.140/- p.m., which is clear from the salary certificate at Ex P. 11. The Doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant had suffered 48% permanent disability to the particular limb and 24% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the r...
Tag this Judgment!Basamma and Others Vs. Devamma and Another
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.: 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in OS No.397 of 1997-a suit on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,] at Bellary, for specific performance of agreement dated 3.4.1991 said to have been executed by the original defendants, one by name Siddappa-first defendant and his wife Siddamma-second defendant in favour of original plaintiff by name B. Chennanagouda, son of Karibasavanagouda. As the original plaintiff and original defendants are all dead and gone, the case has remained either by coming on record of the legal heirs of the plaintiff or bringing on record the legal heirs of the original defendants. 2. Plaintiff’s case was that defendants 1 and 2-Siddappa and Siddamma respectively had during their lifetime executed an agreement dated 3.4.1991 agreeing to sell their property, rickyard measuring East to West-12 yards and North to South-24 yards, identified as Sy.No.546B or 546A/2 in the Village of Somasamudara, Bellary District, bou...
Tag this Judgment!SarojA. Vs. Duggappa, U, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
1. The claimant in MVC 252/2006 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Udupi is the appellant.2. Case of the claimant is that on 4.12.2005 at 8.15 p.m she was standing near Akashavani junction of Barmavar. then the driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 20-H-5848 has dashed against her. On account of it she sustained injuries. Files claim application seeking for compensation of Rs.3,33.100/-.3. The second respondent Insurance Company deny the accident pleaded, call upon the petitioner to prove the accident, contend that the claim is exaggerated. Further contend that the driver of the two wheeler was driving cautiously. Plead to avail defences in accordance with Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act.4. After framing of the issues the claimant is examined as PW1. Doctor who certifies the disability of the claimant is examined as PW2. The learned member of the Tribunal while assessing the evidence has awarded compensation of Rs.58,120/-.5. The learned advocate ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka by Sub-inspector of Police Gonicoppa Police Station ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
AJIT J. GUNJAL, J: 1. Respondent-accused was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge on trial has acquitted him. Hence, the State is in appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as Mr. Arun Shyam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent as Amicus Curiae. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased are husband and wife. A case has been registered as against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint is lodged by PW1-M.B. Basheer which is at Ex.P1 and FIR is at Ex.P4. The gist of the complaint is that he knows the accused as well as the deceased and on the date of incident at about 6.30 p.m. when he was about to close his business, he saw the accused as well as his wife quarreling with each other. He pacified both the accused as well as the deceased and he advised them not to quarrel a...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Madhurani and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
GOVINDRAJULU, J 1. Respondent No.1 in MVC No. 1446/2007 on the file of MACT, Small Causes, Bangalore, SCC-IV, is the appellant. 2. It is the case of the claimants- respondents No.1 and 2 herein that one L. Krishnappa while travelling as a passenger in a Mini Bus – Tata 407 vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA-06/5730 near Eradimmamana Kanive, the driver of the vehicle has lost control over the bus, it resulted in the accident. L. Krishnappa, was thrown out of the bus, died at the spot. 3. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was working as an Operator in FCIOEN Contract Ltd, earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, so they have lost the earning member in the family. So, pray for compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs. 4. The respondent No.1 has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Admit the subsistence of the policy. Contend that the liability is strictly in terms of the policy. Further con...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Rosamma Joseph, Bangalore Vs. Ashok Nichani, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition 16842/2008 and Review Petition No.179/10 dated 17/2/09. Misc.W.12196/10 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 631 days in filing the Writ Appeal and hear and dispose off the same of merits in the interest of Justice.) 1. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2009 passed in W.P.No.16842/2008 and the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in R.P.No.179/2010. 2. W.P.No.16842/2008 was filed by the respondent herein-employer being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No.60/2005 dated 25.7.2008. Appellant herein had raised the said dispute before the Labour Court in view of the order of retrenchment against her-workmen due to lock out for non-complying the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court passed the j...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Nandish and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
Govindarajulu, J 1. Respondent No.1 in MVC No.6665/2007 on the file of MACT, SCCH-IV, Bangalore is the appellant. 2. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are as under: It is the case of the claimant that on 9.9.2007 at 9.30 P.M. when he was travelling in a autorickshaw bearing Regn. No.KA-04/A-6488 from Devanahalli to Bangalore, the driver of the tempo bearing Regn. No.KA-12/5124 has dashed against the Autorickshaw and caused injuries. For the pain, suffering and agony, claimant seeks comp0ensation of Rs.20 lakhs. 3. The respondent No.1 has entered appearance, deny the accident pleaded, call upon the claimant to prove the same. Further contend that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, while admitting the coverage under a policy being issued by the company as on the date of the accident. 4. PWs. 1 and 2 are examined. In response, the representative of the company is examined as RW-1, P1 to P13 are ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore and Others Vs. Asst. Commr. of Comml. Taxes (Enfo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
(Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the Explanation to S.2(h) of the Act inserted by Amendment Act, 2003 with effect from 1.4.2003 as violative of Art.276(2) r/w Art.367(1) of the Constitution and S.3(42) of the General Clauses Act in so far as the petitioner bank is concerned;) Petitioners, the Head Officers of State Bank of Mysore, Vijaya Bank, UCO Bank and State Bank of India situate at Bangalore, through their heads like Chief Manager, General Manager, Assistant Manager and Zonal Manager, are seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the explanation to S.2(h) of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act, 1976 and, to quash the amendment inserted during 2003 with effect from 1.4.2003 as violative of Art.276(2) r/w Art.367(1) of the Constitution and S.3(42) of the General Clauses Act in so far as petitioners are concerned. By the amendment to S.2(h) of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasena Vs. the State of Karnataka, Represented by Its Secretary a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
(Prayer: This Petition is field Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dt. 25.6.2001 vide Annexure – F passed by R2 and ETC...) 1. Though this writ petition was posted for consideration of application for vacating stay filed by the respondent-State, with the learned counsel on both sides, the main writ petition has been heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: a) quash the award bearing No.LAQ:SR:2:93-94 dated 25.6.2001 (Annexure-F); passed by 2nd respondent; b) quash all further proceedings pursuant to preliminary notification issued by 2nd respondent on 15.10.1998 (Annexure-A), declaration made under Section 6[1] of Act dated 25.11.1999 (Annexure-B), and award notice issued under section 12[2] of Act (Annexure-E) insofar as it relates to acquisition of petitioner’s land situated in Sy.No.332, Hoskote Village, Doddaballapur Sub-Division. Bangalore; c) Declare that the acquisition ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »