Karnataka Court May 2011 Judgments

Sri.P.Prasanth Son of Surendranath. Vs. Sri V Chandrashekar Son of Lat ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation in respect of the injuries which he has sustained in a motor accident. 2. The appellant claimant instituted claim petition u/s.166 of the of the M.V.Act claiming compensation in respect of the personal injuries which he sustained in a motor accident that took place on 15.10.2001 at 10 a m near Thimmenahalli located on Chickballapur- Gowribidanur road involving a Maxi cab tempo bearing Regn.No.KA-07-2982 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent at the relevant point of time. 3. It is his case that he was aged 17 years a student prosecuting in ITI at K.V.Campus, Chickballapur. He was intelligent and was taking active role in all sports and cultural activities. On the date of accident he was proceeding in the Maxi cab tempo belonging to the first respondent. When it readied Thimmenahalli on account of the rash and negligent driving of the maxi cab by its driver he lost control over th...

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Puttalingaiah Son of Nlng ...

Court: Karnataka

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award in M.V.C.No. 158/2007 dated 28.12.2007 on the file of M.A.C.T. Maddur. 2. M.F.A.No.4319/2008 is by the insurer. M.F.A.No.2527/2008 is by the claimant. Insurer has questioned the judgment and award both on the question of liability and quantum of compensation whereas, the claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation. 3. The facts leading to these appeals are: The claimant sustained grievous injury in a road accident that occurred on 6.2.20C7. At about 3.30 p.m.. he was moving on the left side of the footpath on Maddur-Malavalli road near Susheclammas land, a Bajaj Discovery motor bike bearing No.KA-51/K-4238 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which, he fell down, he was immediately shifted to Maddur Government Hospital, from there he was shitted to KIMS Hospital. Banglaore. 4. He was treated as inpatient for about three months. Thereafter also he was under treatment. For the ...

Nagaraj A, Son of GovtncashettypalyA. Vs. Sri Lokesh M

Court: Karnataka

1. R1 is the owner of the vehicle. Liability fixed on R2 is not in dispute Hence, notice to R2 is dispensed with. 2. LA.1/2007 is filed for condo nation of delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 97 days in filing this appeal. No objections are filed. Cause shown in the affidavit filed along with the application is accepted. Delay condoned. Accordingly, LA. 1/2007 is allowed. 3. With the consent of both the counsel; the matter is disposed of finality. 4. This is a plaintiff appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of judgement and award in M.V.C.Ho.3090/M06 dated 26.02.2007. 3. Ciaituant had sought for compensation of Rb.4 Lakhs tor the injuries answer in a road accident that occurred on 28.06.2006. The Tribunal on application of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 1,27,600/- with interest The Tribunal has also held mat the insurer k liable to pay the compensation. There is no appeal by the insurer. 6 In the said accident, claimant had suffered gunlock and era...

Shiva Kumari Vs. R. Siddaraju

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(4)KantLJ582

1. This petition is by the dissatisfied wife against the order dated 22-7-2009 in C. Misc. No. 264 of 2004 on the file of Judge. Family Court, Mysore, granting her enhanced maintenance of Rs.1,400/- p.m. Since there is a delay of 99 days in filing the petition, Misc. Civil No. 1892 of 2010 is filed seeking condonation thereof. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent. In response to notice, respondent has entered appearance through learned Counsel who is also absent. Hence, perused records. 3. Records reveal matrimony between the petitioner and respondent is still subsisting which is not disputed. During subsistence, she claims to have left his company due to his torturous act and on that basis filed petition seeking maintenance in C. Misc. No. 9 of 1996 which was considered on merit and by order dated 22-8-1997, Rs.400/- was granted as maintenance which the respondent-husband appears to have paid regularly. However, in the year 2004, she filed the present petition in C. Misc. N...

Dr. Anil Kumar and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Abdul Nazeer, J. In these cases, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules 2006’) in so far as not extending the reservation to Category-I candidates and also questioning the legality and validity of the provisional merit list dated 5.3.2011 published by the 5th respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider their case for admission to PG course through the PGET-2011 under the reservation quota of Category-I (in-service quota) extending all benefits which are available to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 2. The petitioners are the General Duty Medical Officers working in various Government hospitals. They all belong to Category-I. The petitioners have produced the certificates showing that they belong to Category-I as per Annexu...

K.E.B. Layout Residents Welfare Association Bangalore and Others Vs. B ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(4)KantLJ580(DB)

1. Petitioner 1 is a Residents’ Welfare Association, the association was formed to look after the interests of the residents of K.E.B. layout, BTM 1st Stage, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. Petitioner 2 is its Secretary and petitioners 3 to 5 are residents of K.E.B. layout. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition, as a cause in public interest, mainly to declare as illegal the road, that has been laid across the park situated between 6th 7th main roads of the layout referred to above. The grievance of the petitioners is, that respondent 1-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (‘the BBMP for short) has laid a road illegally in the park area situated between 6th and 7th Main Roads referred to above, resulting in bifurcation and shortening of the park area. 3. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted, that the park area between the two main roads is vested with the BBMP and utilisation of the park area for laying of the road to ...

T.N. Narayan Gowda Vs. the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Depa ...

Court: Karnataka

ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. The petitioner contends that the State4 Government had directed the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-A for Allotment of a residential stray site measuring 30 x 40 ft. under the ‘G’ category as per the circular No.UDD 129 MNJ 97 dated 6.8.1997. Since the 2nd respondent did not allot site, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to allot a residential stray site in terms of the directions contained in Annexure-A dated 3.10.2007. 2. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is well established that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. The applicant must show that he has a judicially enforceable right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. A mandamus cannot be issued to direct an authority to do a thing, which it has no legal power to do MANI SUBRAT JAIN ETC. vs. STATE OF KARNA...

Saifulla Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(4)KantLJ577

1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the investigation report filed by the police in C.C. No.27766 of 2010 pending before the X Addl. C.M.M. Court, Bangalore. The police after investigation have laid the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 465, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 420 of the India Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner has also sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs + Rs.1.50 lakhs + Rs.50,000/- from the respondents for filing false charge-sheet and for keeping the seized car without authority of law and for creating false records against the petitioner. 2. Copy of the charge-sheet is produced before the Court. The charge-sheet prima facie reveals that accused 1 and 2 viz., Liyakat Ali Khan and Riyasat Ali Khan allegedly committed theft of various vehicles including the tipper lorries, cars etc. In Uttara Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan States and changed the chassis numbers engine numbers and the registration numbers and thereafter sold such vehicles a...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Srinivasa, Son of Subbanna an ...

Court: Karnataka

1. M.F.A.No.6870/2005 is directed against the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.302/2002 dated 2.5.2005 on the file pi M.A.C.T. Kolar. 2. Appeal is by the insurer, questioning the liability whereas.Cross Objection is by the claimantseeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Claimant has also produced an additional document by way of additional evidence. 4. Claimant sought for compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident that occurred on 7.11.1996. It is alleged that. vehicle claimant v/as proceeding on TVS motor bike bearing No.KA-07/E-6359. a lorry bearing No.AP-03/T-3231 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motor cycle, as a result of which, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised. In this regard. claimant sought for compensation towards injuries and disability suffered on account of the injuries. 5. Claim petition was initially contested by the insurer by filing objections, denying the liability and also the quantum of ...

Smt Sarojamma Wife of Late N.a Jaya Ram Reddy and ors. Vs. Sri V Chand ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.1800/2007 pending on the file of the City Civ.I Court, Bangalore the suit is one for passing decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 2 acres 14 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.81/2 and 83/3 of Doddanekundi, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The plaintiffs filed I.A.I under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for passing of an order of ad interim injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 2. There is no dispute that there was an agreement of sale between the plaintiffs/appellants and defendant 1/respondent 1 on 8.6.2003 for sale of 3 acres 29 guntas of land in Sy.Nos. 81/2 and 83/3 of Doddanekundi, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. At the instance of defendant 1, the plaintiffs have sold 1 acre 15 guntas of land in the form of sites to various parties. In view of the said sales, the lis has now got narrowed down to ...