Karnataka Court August 2011 Judgments

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Mumtaz Begum and Other ...

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

1. This appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited is directed against the Judgment and award dated 14-9-2007 passed by the XII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shorapur, sitting at Shahapur in M.V.C. No. 2/2006 By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,10,700/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. to respondent No.1 for the death of her son by name Tariq Nadeem due to the injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 5-6-2002 while he was traveling as a passenger in his private jeep bearing No. KA 23/M 2981. He died on 22-7-2002. The appellant being the Insurer of the aforesaid jeep is made liable to pay the award amount. The deceased himself was the owner/insured of the said jeep. 2. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment. 3. On the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to consider all the contentions urged  by the Counsel for the appellant. One of the contention...

A. Govindaraju Vs. K. Usha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(2)KantLJ22

(Prayer: Review petition filed under Sec.397 of Criminal Procedure Code praying, for review of the Order dated 26/10/2009 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.353/2008, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.) 1. Styled as “Review Petition”, this petition is filed. But the provisions invoked are Section 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C. and office has raised objection about its maintainability. 2. In answer to it, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Venkatesh R Bhagath would submit that there is no provision under Cr.PC and hence, he has invoked the provisions referred to above but the relief sought is to review. On such a submission, it has to be held that review is not maintainable under Section 397. It is only a revisional power of this Court. Section 482 is referred to as a provision under which the petitioner seeks the relief of review by this Court. It is noticed in the recent past, similar petitions are being filed in the High Court ...

V. Govindappa Since Deceased by L.Rs. and Others Vs. Karnataka State F ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. A petition filed by the 1st respondent under Sections 31(1)(aa) and 32 of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (‘the Act’ for short) against the appellants and other respondents having been allowed, the appellants who were respondents 2 and 3 in the Court below have filed this appeal under Section 32(9) of the Act. 2. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the petition filed before the Learned District Judge at Kolar. 3. Material facts of the case are: The petitioner is a Financial Corporation established under Section 3 of the Act. The 1st respondent is a private Limited Company, Respondents 2 to 7 are its directors. The 1st respondent through its direction, respondents 2 and 3/appellants, came forward to purchase the assets including the land and building with plant and machinery of M/s. Hanuman Enterprises. The Corporation agreed to sell the assets of M/s. Hanuman Enterprises for Rs.7,...

P.K. Mohammed Hanif Present South Karnataka Salafi Movement (Sksm) Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petitions is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by R1 as per Annexure-H dated 4.5.2011 and etc.) 1. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the legality/validity of the order Annexure-H dated 4.5.2011 in case No. TPS/APPEAL/8/2010-11 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District, the 1st respondent herein. 2. The petitioner is the President of Suntikoppa Branch of South Karnataka Salafi Movement. He had purchased 10 cents of land in Sy. No. 128/IAI-P1 comprising of a dilapidated tiled house situated at Uluguli Village, Suntikoppa Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, under a deed of sale at Annexure-A dated 9.7.2008. He made an application to the Suntikoppa Grama Panchayat (for short ‘the Panchayat) seeking permission to hold prayer meetings and other cultural programmes in the existing old structure of the said property. The Panchayat passed a resolution in its meeting held...

B.P. Channa Keshava Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. Persons who are fighting for immovable property, in the present case, an extent of 1 acre 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.117/4 which the petitioner claims to be ancestral property is said to have been used by the school committee for the purpose of playground of the students studying in the school and in this background, it appears the school committee had also filed a suit before the Civil Court for the relief of injunction. The suit having been decreed and further appeal by the writ petitioner having been dismissed, petitioner had approached this Court by filing second appeal in RSA No.182 of 2000. The second appeal came to be allowed by this Court as per judgment dated 29-1-2004 on the technical ground that while the subject school was a Government school, a person who had filed suit on behalf of the school is only a member of the betterment committee and this Court taking the view the person was not competent to maintain the suit on behalf of the Government school and having reframed...

Karnataka State Board Transport Corporation Bangalore Rural Division V ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the orders passed by the first Respondent dated 22.5.2010 Annexure-B and Etc..) 1. The public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2010 in DLCB- 1/PGA/Appeal/ CR-50/08-09 Annexure-B of the 1st respondent Appellate Authority, has presented this petition. 2. The 3rd respondent an employee of the petitioner – Road Transport Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2005, was entitled to gratuity by computing the quantum either in terms of the KSRTC Servants Gratuity Regulations, for short Regulations or the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short Act, whichever is beneficial. Petitioner reckoned 27 years and 6 months as the period of continuous service, by excluding 7 years, 3 months and 22 days from out of 34 years, 9 months and 29 days, alleging absence, leave without salary, suspension and others and accordingly, computed Rs. 1,70...

Smt. Shobha Pillai Vs. the Principal Vijaya College, Mulki and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 29.3.2006 in E.A.T. Number 5/2002 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal Mangalore (The Principal District Judge) Dakshina Kannada filed as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and further prays for Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent-1 and Respondent-2 to appoint the petitioner as lecturer in the computer Department of the respondent-1 with continuous service and Back Wages.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The facts are as follows: The petitioner had joined the services of Vijaya College, Mulki, which is under the management of the Second respondent, in the year 1989 as an Instructor and was working in the Computer Department. She was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year. After one year, she was assigned the post of a Lecturer in the same department. She was continuously employe...

Babu Vs. State by Basavanahalli Police

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 21.2.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Chikmagalur in S.C.No.90/2003, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- I.D. etc.) 1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur in S.C. NO.90/2003. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: P.W.5 - Manjula, the injured is the wife of the appellant – accused and their marriage was held about 14 years prior to the incident. They have two daughters and a son through the wed lock. There was a fixed deposit in the name of PW.5 Manjula and also a site at Mysore in her name given by her parents. The appellant was ill-treating his wife Manjula for...

Smt. Najmunnisa and Others Vs. the Regional Office, the Oriental Insur ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2063; 2012(4)KantLJ523

(Prayer: MFA filed u/s 173(1) OF MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 16/2/06 passed in MVC No. 21/00 on the file of the 18th Addl.Judge, Member, MACT, Court of small causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-4), partly allowing the claim petition for Compensation and seeking Enhancement of Compensation.) 1. The claimants have preferred this appeal being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.21/2000 passed on 16.02.2005. 2. The claim petition was lodged on account of death of one Mohammed Idris Ahmed, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 8.9.1999 at about 2.30 am. The petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act stating that the deceased was working as an Engineer in a Granite Company, drawing a salary of Rs.6,500/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Later an application was filed for amendment of the claim petition stating that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.18,500/- per month and total amount of...

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore and Others Vs. M/S. H.P. Glo ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 25-11-2005 passed in ITA No.701/MUM/2000 for the assessment year 1995-96, praying that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to: formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.701/MUM/2000 dated 25-11-2005 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai, in the interest of Justice and equity.) 1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of electrical work, civil work and interior decoration is in the nature of the revenue expenditure and therefore directed the Assessing Officer to allow the entire expenditure under this head as revenue as claimed by the assessee. 2. The assessee is a listed public company a...