Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments

V. Nandakumar Vs. Smt. M. Indumathi

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) and Prl. J.M.F.C., at K.G.F. on I.A. No. 1 filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No. 31/2010 dated 30.10.2010 vide Annexure-F.) 1. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent (The parties are hereinafter referred to as husband and wife.) The wife has filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) against the husband for the relief of divorce on certain allegations. The same is numbered as M.C. No. 31/2010. Statement of objections are filed by the husband to the main matter. The husband had also filed M.C. No. 1256/2010 praying for divorce. Both petitions are pending consideration. 2. An application came to be filed by the wife under Section 25 of the Act, praying for permanent alimony to an extent of Rs. 25 ...

Smt. Pushpavathi and Others Vs. Smt. Manjamma and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 02/06/2008 passed in MVC No.1469/2005 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Member, Addl. MACT, Hassan, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and awarding compensation of Rs.3,88,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.) 1. These two appeals by the claimants and the Insurer are directed against the same judgment and award dated 2nd June 2008, passed in M.V.C.No.1469/2005, by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr Dn) and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. While the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,88,000/- awarded in their favour, as against their claim for Rs.10.00 Lakhs, is inadequate and needs to be enhanced, the Insurer has filed the appeal seeking to set aside the liability fastened on it by the...

Govindagiri and Others Vs. the Government of Karnataka, Represented by ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These W.As. are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 10/10/2006 passed in Writ Petition No.10954/2006 and 11938/2006.) 1. The appellants claiming to be the parents of the students who are studying in various standards in ICSE and CBSE syllabus have filed these appeals, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 10th October 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10954/2006 and W.P.No.11938/2006 and connected matters, wherein, they have assailed the correctness of the Circular dated 10th July 2006 issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under: The appellants are the parents of the children studying in various standards from primary to 10th standard in ICSE and CBSE syllabus and they have challenged the Circular dated 10.7.2006 issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions-4th respondent herein, contending that the said circular issued an...

Smt. Padma and Others Vs. the Chief Traffic Manager

Court: Karnataka

1. W.P.Nos.37323 to 37325 of 2010 is filed by the legal representatives of deceased Seenappachari, a driver in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation, calling in question the award dated 9-11-2009 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D.No.47 of 2006 insofar as it relates to the substitution of the dismissal from service to withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment, without back wages and consequential benefits except continuity of service for pensionary/retirement benefits and not for other benefits like increments, promotion, etc. W.P.No.23423 of 2010 is filed by the Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the very same award. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order. 3. Material facts in a nutshell are: Seenappachari, hereinafter referred to as workman, in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation remained unautho...

Gurappa and Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(5)KantLJ616; 2011ILR(Kar)5625

1. Writ jurisdiction is more abused and misused by persons who may not for bona fide or genuine grievance to be redressed by imposters, by persons who more often than not grab Government lands, but jump into High Court invoking writ jurisdiction when corrective action is proposed against them by filing writ petitions whose duty it is to take such action against encroachers, illegal occupants and such other persons when Government land or public land is gobbled up by such greedy persons. 2. In the name of development all sorts of mal practices take place. People seek for conversion of lands not belonging to them and approaching revenue officials who are more often than not amenable to other considerations pass orders or do not pass orders to enable such persons to claim the benefit of a deeming provision by persons to assert their rights in writ jurisdiction etc. 3. Present writ petitioners (six in number) claim that they are the owners of total extent of 5 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy...

Sri. Narasimha Reddy and anr Vs. Statb by State Public Prosecutor

Court: Karnataka

ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event, of their arrest in Cr.No. 17/11 of Koramangala Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 3. The contents of the FIR found in the record discloses that the Sub Inspector of Police, Koramangala police station have registered a case in Crime No. 17/11 against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 406. 420, 468. 471. 120(B) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of the Authorised Representative of Ind.iabulls Housing Finance Ltd., It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached the complainant on 24.05.2010 for grant of loan for purchase of sites bearing Nos.41, 42, 43 and 44 in Katha No.248. situated a...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri E.Murugesh, Son of Erappa, and or ...

Court: Karnataka

1. A petition filed by the 1st respondent, to order-payment of compensation by the 2nd respondent and the appellant, having been allowed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chitradurga, the appellant, which was the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, has filed this appeal For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the claim petition. 2. The petitioner was employed by the 2 respondent, to drive an autorickshaw owned by him bearing registration No.KA-ie-A-iSSO. On 11.09.2005, the vehicle driven by the appellant met. with an accident and he sustained injuries and took treatment at District Hospital, Chitradurga and later in a private hospital. According to him, his wages was Rs.4,000/- p.m with bata of Rs.100/- per day and on account of the said employment injuries, there being permanent disability, there is loss in the earning capacity. He filed the petition to direct deposit of compensation amount with interest. 3. The 1st res...

Sri M.R.Jayaram, Son of Late Ramaiah. Vs. Srnt. Venkatamrna Wo Late Sr ...

Court: Karnataka

1. With consent of the learned counsel on both sides, since LCR is received, the appeal is heard for final disposal. 2. The appellant tiled O.S 128/1982 against the respondents in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for passing a decree of declaration of his title and for mandatory injunction and other reliefs in respect of plaint schedule property. Some of the defendants having passed away, their legal representatives are brought on record. The suit was decreed on 13.11.1990. The defendants questioned the said decree in RFA 400/1992, which was allowed on 94.03.1999 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court. The appellant after receipt of court notice, engaged Sri B.Veerabhadrappa, advocate, who filed the vakalath on 20.07.2000. Sri B.Veerabhadrappa died on 22.01,2001. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.03 2001. 3. A Misc.petition was filed by the appellant on 17.04.2001 under 0.9 R.9 CPC, to set-aside the said order passed in O.S.No.128/1982 and to restore the suit. I....

Arvind Raghavan and Another Vs. Esi Corporation Regional Office, Rep b ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These CRL.R.Ps Filed U/S 397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C. Praying to set aside the Judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed by the P.O. FTC-II, Bangalore, in CRL.R.P. Nos 635, 636, 637 and 638/2008 Respectively, and uphold the order of Discharge dated 25/9/2008 passed by the IV ACMM, Bangalore City, in C.C. Nos. 8705, 8706, 8707 and 8708/1999 Respectively, Vide Annexure-J.) 1. All these criminal revision petitions involve common questions of law and therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are disposed of finally though the matter is listed for admission. 2. The common facts in all these petitions are that, a complaint was filed by the respondent E.S.I Corporation against the petitioners u/s 200 of Cr.P.C before the trial court praying for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 405 and 406 of IPC on the complaint allegations that the accused petitioners though had deducted the employees contribution, failed to remit the same to the E.S.I Co...

Ashok A.R. Vs. Shri Ganesh K.R. and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This MFA.CROB in MFA 12127/2007 filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2006 passed in MVC No.7246/2005 on the file of XVI additional Judge Member, Mact, Bangalore, SCCH-14, awarding A compensation of Rs.5,90,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till realisation.) 1. Appeal is by the claimant and cross-objections is by the insurer against the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.7246/2005 dated 12.12.2006 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore. 2. Appellant has sought for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurer has questioned the liability. 3. The parties are referred to as per the ranking in the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts leading to this case are: i) Claimant sought for compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident interalia alleging that he was working as a cleaner cum loader, earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 05.06.2005, he traveled in a Mini Goods Tempo Tata...