Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments

T. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. the Registrar General, High Court of K ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(5)KantLJ274; 2011(4)KCCR2701; 2011ILR(Kar)4793

1. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, the petition is considered for final hearing having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts are as follows.- The petitioner is the widow of one M. Srinivas and the petitioners 2 and 3 are their twin sons. M. Srinivas, who was working as Group ‘D’ employee, in the establishment of the High Court of Karnataka joined service on 16-3-1992 and died on 18-6-2010, while he was working in the Accounts Branch II of the High Court. The petitioner-widow made an application in the prescribed form to the respondent on 23-7-2010, seeking sanction of family pension and other pensionary benefits. The respondent called upon her to furnish a survivorship certificate from the Tahsildar. The same was produced by her on 7-9-2010. It is also the petitioner’s case that she has passed S.S.L.C., and is aged about 37 years and is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, she has made an appl...

M.R. Narasimhaiah Vs. N.M. Rajpal (Huf) and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These two MFAs are filed under Sec. 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 6.12.2005 passed in MVC No.1414/2002 on the file of XIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation (in MFA No.5713/2006) and awarding of compensation of Rs.70,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of compensation amount in the tribunal (in MFA No.2369/2006.) 1. MFA No.5713/2006 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT., Bangalore dated 6.12.2005 in MVC No.1414/2002. MFA No.2369/2006 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the liability saddled on it by the tribunal. Therefore these two appeals are heard together. 2. Following facts are not in dispute in these appeals are: Claimant is a driver of KSRTC bus. On 19.12.1999 he was driving the bus from Bangalore to Melvarthur con Chitoo...

Benedict Vincent Vs. the Managing Director Bangalore Mahanagara Transp ...

Court: Karnataka

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 18/04/2007 passed in MVC No.6370/2005 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th April 2007, passed in MVC No.6370/2005, by the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `6,55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `10,00,000/-, is adequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 55 years, working as Managing plumbing and electrical maintenance and was earning `12,000/- per month and was hale and healthy p...

Shivamma and Another Vs. Arogyamma and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KCCR2458

B.S. PATIL, J: 1. In these writ petitions, the judgment debtors 1 and 3 in Execution Petition No.78/2004 (re-numbered as 24/2007) are seeking to quash the execution proceedings pending on the file of Sr. Civil Judge, K.R. Nagar. 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the wife and son respectively Sri. K.N.Nagaraju. Suit O.S.No.38/2000 was filed by Smt. Arogyamma against petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent-Mallikarjuna for recovery of a sum of `52,500/- along with interest alleging that the said sum was advanced by the plaintiff to the deceased Sri. K.N. Nagaraju and that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent being the legal representatives of deceased Sri. K.N. Nagaraju having succeeded to his properties were liable to discharge the legal debt. 3. The suit came to be decreed on 09.02.2004 holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the said sum of `52,500/- from the defendants along with interest at 6% p.a. During the course of judgment it is held that after the death of Sri. K.N. ...

Primary Health Centre Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(5)KantLJ668

1. Writ petitioner claims to be a Primary Health Centre at Adyanadka Post, Bantwala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, represented by its Medical Officer Dr. Subodha Kumar Rai, who has approached this Court seeking the following relief.- “a. Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 16-3-2009 passed by the 1st respondent in Revision Petition No. C.Dis.RAP. 137/08-09 (Annexure-F). b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the name of the petitioner in the records of rights maintained for the land measuring 0.04 acres situated in Sy.No.449/3B in Kepu Village, Bantwala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada”. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the Primary Health Centre is one established under the supervision of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and in Association with Zilla Panchayat, Dakshina Kannada and caters to the health care of ...

iqbal Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Rev ...

Court: Karnataka

(PRAYER: THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.5.2011 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR, THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN, IN R.A.4/2007 VIDE ANNEX.O IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ENFORCING EVICTION FROM THE LAND IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONER. DIRECT RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 TO ISSUE GRANT ORDER OF THE LAND SO RECOMMENDED ON EARLIER OCCASIONS AND ALSO AS RECOGNIZED IN ANNEX.L.) RE : WP Nos.21150-155/2011 1. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued based on recommendations made whether by a higher authority or a lower authority to a particular authority to whom a mandamus is sought for to grant any government land, on the basis of such recommendations. As to whether the writ petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.28 of Tumkur Taluk, since the year 1965-66 as asserted in the writ petitions or otherwise, are all not matters for examination by this Court at this point of t...

Smt. Durugamma and Others Vs. Shivashankara and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173 of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated, 24.03.2007 passed in MVC No. 157/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Member, MACT-VI, Kudligi, dismissing the claim petition for compensation. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.3.2007 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Member, MACT-VI in M.V.C.No. 157/2005. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the fateful day of 28.3.2005, one Durugamma was knocked down by a lorry. She died on the spot. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 claiming to be the daughter and grandson respectively of the deceased filed the claim petition. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants have failed to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Durugamma. 4. Sri Ravi Hosamani, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the police documents drawn at the time of preparing the spot mahazar contain ref...

Bettaswamaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Revenue Department, Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(2)KantLJ16

(This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dt. 10.5.11 passed by the R2 vide Ann-A as passed without authority of law or bad in law and etc.,)Property rights are not examined by the High Court in a petition either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. More so, when an order which is sought to be questioned before the High Court is only an order relating to certain revenue entries in respect of agricultural lands and does not necessarily affect property rights.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by a correction order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Tahsildar. Magadi Taluk in Proceedings No.RRT/PADA/CR/03-04. directing that the entries in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.35 of 3 Shivanasandra Village, Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk, which perhaps had been earlier mutated in the name of one by name Giriyanna deleting the name of the Government and to show the name of erstwhile khatedar on the premise ...

Mr. Shanthilal Jain, Son of Poonamchanu Vs. the United Western Bank Lt ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.3 In O.S No.1 134/1995 on the file of XXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge at Mayohall. Bangalore being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7-12-2004 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank (respondent No.1 herein) has been decreed entitling the plaintiff to recover a suit of Rs 5.75.564/- together with current and future interest at the rate of 16.5% p.a. on the said amount from defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally from the date of suit till the date of its realization. 2. The material facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court, are as follows: The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 11 134/'1995 seeking recovery of Rs.5.75.564/- together with interest and costs from defendants-1 to 3 jointly and severally on 16-11 1995. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff is a joint stock company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913 and inc...

Shivakumar Vs. the Managing Director Bmtc, Central Office K H Road, Ba ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.12.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.4633/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES and MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.) 1. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was working as a security guard and after the accident he is unable to work as security guard and therefore, he was terminated from service. He also submits that as per the judgment and Award made on 6.11.2004, the Tribunal awarded compensation in all amounting to Rs.1,47,640/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.80,640/- was awarded towards loss of future earnings on the basis of permanent disablement of 14% to the whole body. The judgment and Award made on 6.11.2004 was challenged by the respondent/BMTC, in MFA No.5502/2005 (MV). The said appeal was partly allowed by order dated 8.1.2008 confirming the finding recorded by the Tribuna...