Karnataka Court January 2012 Judgments
Surendra Kumar Vs. Dinesh and Another
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The appellant/petitioner sustained fracture of right tibia in a Motor vehicle accident. The occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and coverage of insurance is not in dispute. The petitioner has filed a claim petition for compensation and is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The petitioner was working as a Medical Sales Representative. The petitioner was paid a salary of Rs.2,500/- with additional benefit of Rs.1,100/- towards other incentives. Besides, he was paid Rs.3,000/- as TA and DA for promoting sales and his net salary should be considered as Rs.3,600/- and an amount of Rs.3,000/- paid would be necessarily spent for TA and DA and it does not accrue as of income to the petitioner. The nature of work of the petitioner involve extensive travels, which involves physical movements. The fracture involved would result in disability at 10%. The said disability would affect the efficiency. The income loss proportiona...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Revanasiddeshwara Vs. K.M. Shylaja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P filed u/S.397 r/w 401 of cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 19.06.2010 passed in Crl.Mis.No.1915/09 on the file of the 8th Addl.CMM, Bangalore and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 4.6.11 by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.574/10 and etc.) 1. Whether Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 operates as a bar for filing the application under Section 5 of the said Act before the lower appellate court in respect of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (‘Domestic Violence Act, 2005’ for short) is the question that has arisen in this petition. 2. Brief facts are that, the respondent herein being the wife of the petitioner, filed Crl.Misc.No. 1915/09 before the trial court under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking certain reliefs. The petitioner herein being the husband contested the said application and ultimately, the trial court by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms Cue-n-net(R) Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J: 1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondents. 2. In this case, the petitioner has sought for an order directing the respondents not to insist upon it to obtain license to carry on lawful activities in its premises either under the Police Act, or under the Provisions of Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement Order and not to interfere in the play of skill oriented games like Rummy, Poker, chess and Carrom, Coin Games, Wall Ball skill and other skill games and etc. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no activity necessitating obtaining of license under the Licensing Order is carried on in the premises of the petitioner; that the activity of playing the games of Dart, Chess, Rummy, Snooker/Billiards and Carrom etc., are not in the nature of gambling activity of game of chance: that such games are not prohibited or regulated. Moreover, the place of the petitioner is not a public place and the entry is re...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Shanthamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary for Higher E ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
B.S. Patil, J: 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not evaluating the answer papers of the Common Entrance Test examination taken by them on 27.11.2011. 2. Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. They have completed the required training and are also possessing B.A. Degree. The Karnataka State Open University had conducted Common Entrance Test examination for selecting the candidates for the purpose of pursuing B.Ed. course. Petitioners being duly qualified appeared for the examination. Their results are not announced on the ground that they failed to answer all the questions in the said examination. In these circumstances, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent-University. 3. In fact, in W.P.No.1189/2011, petitioner therein is communicated with the decision of the University vide communication dated 20.12.2011 stating that as he had not answered all the questions his answer paper had...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramanappa and Others Vs. S. Ananda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
1. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards personal injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. CAW-765, from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. He submits that at the time of accident, the claimant was not discharging his duties as a Security Guard and hence he was not entitled to claim compensation from the ESI Corporation. He was cited the following decisions: (i) 2010 ACJ 662 (KURIAKOSE versus SANTHOSH KUMAR) on the point that claim under Motor Vehicles Act is not barred if the injured is getting benefit under the ESI Act; (ii) 2011 ACJ 161 (SMT. SHRIDEVI AND OTHERS versus SMT. S. SAROJINI) on the point that though accident had occurred in the course and out of employment, the claimants had not made any claim against the employer, but agains...
Tag this Judgment!The Jamia Masjid Vs. K.V. Rudrappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
(Prayer: THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT.02.07.2007 PASSED IN RA.NO.125/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO. 149/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM., TUMKUR.) 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Tumkur in RA No.125/2006 dated 2.7.2007, whereunder appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Tumkur, in OS No. 149/98 dated 3.2.2006 dismissing the suit came to be affirmed. 2. This Court by order dated 6.9.2011 has admitted the above appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of resjudicata by taking into consideration the earlier suits...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Rajnaika and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
1. The State has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Fast Track Court-I, Davangere, in SC.No.22/2004, acquitting the respondents. By the impugned judgment, the respondents are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 395, 201 and 419 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. 2. The deceased Basavaraj and accused No. 1 Devaraj are brothers. They are sons of Gurusiddappa. The family had got two establishments of Bakeries viz., ‘Prakash Bakery’ and ‘Shivaprakash Bakery’. Prakash Bakery was being run by accused No. 1, whereas Shivaprakash Bakery was being run by the deceased. Prakash Bakery came to be closed as the land lord of the said premises got back the possession and consequently, accused No. 1 (tenant) was evicted. However, accused No. 1 and the deceased were jointly doing business thereafter in Shivaprakash Bakery. Differences arose in the family. Deceased filed a c...
Tag this Judgment!Sri S.M. Krishna Son of Sri S.C. Mallaiah. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the averments of PCR No.27/2011 as they relate to petitioner herein and setting aside the order dated 03.12.2011. passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in PCR No.27/2011. referring the complaint to Additional Director General of police. Lokayukta, for investigation and quashing first information report in Crime No.63/2011, registered by Lokayukta police as they relate to petitioner herein. 2. I have heard Sri Uday U.Lalit. learned senior counsel for petitioner. Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy. learned counsel for I-respondent/Lokayukta police and II respondent/party-in- person Sri T.J.Abraham. 3. The brief facts necessary for decision of this petition are as follows:- A complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. in PCR No.27/2011 was tiled in the court of learned Special Judge at Bangalore, against the petitioner amongst others, alleging offences punishable under sections 13(l)(d) 13(l)(e) & section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. offences punis...
Tag this Judgment!Sri H. D. Kumarswamy Former Chief Minister of Son of Sri H.D. Devegowd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated in PCR No.27/2011. on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore City and quash the order dated 03.12.2011 referring the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, for investigation by Lokayukta Police. 2. I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy learned counsel for I-respondent and II respondent Sri T.J.Abraham, Party-impression. 3. The relevant averments of complaint as they relate to petitioner are as follows: - (a) In the month of July 2006, one Sri Janardhana Reddy, MIX. said 10 have made allegation that the petitioner has collected bribe of Rs. 150 crores from the Miners and the same was published in "The Hindu" News Paper dated 15"July 2006. (b) The petitioner has approved the Mining Lease illegally in favour of M/s. Shree Sai Venkateshwara Minerals in respect of 550 acres of land in Jog. Thimmappagudi. Vhavihalli. NEB Range. Sandur Taluk. Bellarv Di...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rasheeda Ishrath Mab. Wo. Shafiq Ur Rehman. Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. In these writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the notifications dated 29.1.2003 and 30.3.2004 vide Annexures-'H' and T. 2. By the impugned notifications, the land in question i.e., 3y.No.75/2 of Thotadaguddadahalli village. Dasanapura Hobli. Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 3 acres and 23 guntas has been acquired. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. 4. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of Sy.No.75/2 of Thotadaguddadahalli village, measuring 3 acres and 23 guntas, having purchased it through registered sale-deeds dated 10.4.1996 and 17.4.1997 vide Annexures-W and B'. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Taluk, initiated proceedings under sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and passed order dated 21.9.2004 in LRF(l)63/2002-03 against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore, in Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »