Karnataka Court August 2012 Judgments
Omanna Since Deceased by His Lrs and Others Vs. Sushibai and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-09-2012
(Prayer: This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2000 passed in O.S No.35/88 by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Belgaum, decreeing the suit for declaration and possession and dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.) 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4th April 2000 passed in O.S.No.35/1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff granting relief of declaration as well as possession in respect of 18 guntas of the suit schedule land from defendant Nos.25 to 35 and declining to grant decree of permanent injunction. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The pedigree of the family is clearly set out in schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint which is not in dispute. 4. The land bearing R.S.No.1389 originally measured 23 acres 36 guntas. It was owned by one Thakkoji. Thakkoji had five sons by name Omanna, Narayan, Parashram, Neelu and Meenaji....
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
K. Ramanna, President 1. These three appeals have arisen out of the same order passed by the DF, Hassan in Complaint No.6/2009 dated 24.09.2009 whereby the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants in Appeal No. 235/2010 came to be allowed in part directing the appellants in Appeal Nos. 3780/2009 and 4022/2010 to pay a sum Rs. 4,04,000/- within two months, failing which the said amount carries interest at 10% p.a till the date of payment. Further OP 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Appeal No. 3780/2009 s filed by OP 2, the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., whereas the Appeal No. 4022/2010 is filed by OP 1, the proprietor of M/s Vinayaka Gas Agencies to set aside the order passed by the DF and Appeal No. 235/2010 is filed by the complainants seeking enhancement of the compensation on various grounds. 3. Since all these appeals arisen out of one and the same order passed by the DF, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, they are taken up ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananth, Consulting Engineer, Uttara Kannada Dist. Vs. the Senior Manag ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
K. Ramanna, President 1. This appeal is filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the C.P. Act challenging the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the DF, Uttar Kannada, Karwar in Complaint No.139/2010 whereby the DF dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 47 days caused in filing this appeal supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. 3. After service of notice, though the respondents have been served, neither they appeared in person nor through Advocate. 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 5. The point for determination in this appeal to consider is; 1. Whether the appellant has shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 47 days in preferring this appeal? 2. Whether the DF is justified in dismissing the comp...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka, by Hoskote Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This Crl. R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr. P.C. praying to set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.39/2008 dated 21.1.2010 passed by the P.O., FTC-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and consequently set aside the judgment of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hoskote in C.C.No.425/1999 and acquit the petitioner/accused.)1. The petitioner faced trial for offences punishable under Ss.279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). The petitioner was found guilty and was convicted by the learned Magistrate and was imposed various sentences, which were directed to run concurrently. The maximum sentence imposed was one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences under Ss.279 and 304-A IPC. In case of default to pay the fine amount, sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months was imposed.2. Background facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:On 24.6.1999, the accused-petitioner was the driver of a Maxi Cab bearing re...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadra and Others Vs. Pankaj and Another
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This MFA Filed Under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 3.6.2011 passed in MVC No.346/09 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Fast Track Court-I/II, Bijapur, wherein dismissing the claim petition and herein seeking compensation.) Oral Judgment: (Dilip B. Bhosale J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.6.11 rendered by the presiding officer, FTC- I/II, Bijapur in MVC No.346/09, whereby the motor vehicles case (for short 'the claim petition') instituted by the appellant-claimants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), has been dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that on 29.12.2008, while the deceased-Rajendra was travelling in a bus, bearing Registration No.MH-20-D- 9030, at about 7 a.m., met with an accident near Pirachi- Kurolli, on Pandharpur-Pune road in the State of Maharashtra. The bus, in which he was trave...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C.M. Hanumantharaju and ors. Vs. Dr. Siddappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition 15417/12 & 15636-664/12 dated 8/6/12.)NAGARATHNA J.1. These appeals assail the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.06.2012, in W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 & W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012 and W.P.Nos.15813-15816/ 2012, which were filed by in-service doctors appointed on contract basis and were regularized in the year 2007.2. W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 were filed by the in-service doctors assailing the inclusion of respondent Nos.5 to 168 therein in the provisional departmental merit list. Respondent Nos.5 to 66 therein are doctors absorbed as regular doctors under the provisions of Karnataka Civil Service (Absorption of Doctors appointed on Contract Basis in the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services) (Special) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Absorption Rules, 2006 for the sake of brevity). Similarly r...
Tag this Judgment!Sri JayannA. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
VikramajitSen, Chief Justice1. In W.P.No.28263/2004 the learned Single Judge was called upon to decide the question whether a grant of land made to a person whose caste was included in the list of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes subsequent to the Presidential Notification of the year 1950 would nevertheless come within the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act for the sake of brevity) which became operational on 01.01.1979.2. Thelearned Single Judge had analyzed the decision in Obalegappa Versus the Deputy Commissioner ILR 1999 KAR 372 delivered by a Single Bench, as also the three Division Bench judgment in Krishnappa Versus State of Karnataka ILR 1982 KAR 1310, Mahalingappa Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, WA No.2807/1991 decided on 07.11.1995 (unreported) and T.M. Rangaiah Versus Assistant Commissioner Tiptur ILR 2002 KAR 1987. Confronted with conflict...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Vs. Abdulgani
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in R.A No.134/2000 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Hubli, partly allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2000 passed in O.S No.194/1989 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubli.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of specific performance and is only entitled to decree of recovery of money paid under the agreement of sale. In fact, the defendant has also filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the Courts below regarding the proof of execution of the agreement of sale and payment of consideration under the agreement of sale. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The subject matter of the suit is the non- agricultural land compr...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Aravind Bushan. Vs. the State of Karnataka, by S.P.P. for Chandra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. is filed under Section 397(2) r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the FTC-VI, Bangalore in S.C.No.160/2009 thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under S.227 of Crl.P.C. and allow the application filed by the petitioner (A3) for discharge for the above said offences.)1. Petitioner, a Software Engineer is accused No.3 (A3 for short) in S.C.No.160/2009 pending in the Court of City Fast Track (Sessions), Bangalore City (FTC-VI). This petition has been filed to set aside an order dated 22.12.2010 passed in the said case, rejecting an application filed by petitioner/A3, for discharge under S.227 Cr.P.C.2. Material facts of the case are:AvinashBhushan/A1 is the elder brother of petitioner/A3. Avinash Bhushan married one Sowmya Chandra, daughter of respondent No.2 herein. Their marriage took place on 9.5.2008. Both Avinash Bhushan and Sowmya Chandra were working as Software Engineers. At the relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyanna Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned circular issued by the R1 Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya in No.LAO(2) 22/12-12, dated 7.5.12 vide Annex-F and etc.)1. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the first respondent Deputy Commissioner's circular, dated 7.5.2012 (Annexure-F) directing the second respondent to award the interest only from the date of the receipt of the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act for short). The said circular is issued as the awarding of additional interest is imposing a heavy burden on the Government.2. As this case involves no disputed questions of facts and as it involves the pure question of law, the advertance to the facts of the case may not be necessary. The question that falls for my consideration is Whether the applicant for the re¬determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »