Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: accident Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka dharwad Page 95 of about 966 results (0.047 seconds)

Palaswami Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

b.v. pinto, j. 1. this appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 22.03.2011 passed by the principal district and sessions judge and special judge, dharwad in special n.d.p.s.c.c.no.1/210 convicting the appellant for an offence under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (the act for short) and sentencing him to undergo r.i. for 10 years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-, in default to undergo r.i. for two years. 2. it is the case of the prosecution that on 11.01.2010 at about 19.30 hours, the accused was found in possession of 21 kgs of ganja in two air bags in the old bus stand, hubli, without any permission and hence is charged for having committed the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the act. the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 10 witnesses and got marked exs.p1 to p14 and produced m.os.1 to 4. the defence of the accused was one of total denial. the learned special judge after hearing the prosecution and the defence, found the accused guilty and convicted him as aforesaid. the convicted accused has filed this appeal. 3. heard sri g.a. holeyannavar, learned counsel for the appellant and sri. anand k. navalgimath, learned hcgp for the respondent-state. 4. the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant-police have not followed the mandatory provisions prescribed under sections 50 and 42 of the act and therefore the judgment and conviction is liable to be set aside. he has .....

Thungabhadra Sugarcane and Banana Growers Association and Others Vs. t ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

(prayer: this writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to call for the records and quash the impugned order dated 26/11/2010, vide annexure-a, issued by the first respondent and also by issuing appropriate directions.) n. kumar, j., 1. when all these writ petitions were listed before a learned single judge of this court, after hearing the parties the learned single judge has passed an order on 25/2/2011. the relevant portion of which reads as under: as it involves interpretation of clause 3, 3a and 6 of the sugarcane control orders 1966, in the background of the observations made by the honourable supreme court in the case of up co-operative cane unions federation versus west up sugar mills association and others reported in air 2004 sc 3697 (supra) and the observation made in slp (c) 8194 - 8198/2010 dated 29/3/2010 (annexure-r13), i am of the considered view that the said issue regarding interpretation of clause 3, 3a and 6 of the sugar control order, 1966 vis-a-vis. price agreed between parties under contractual agreements requires to be examined and resolved by a division bench so that issues raised in all these writ petitions can be resolved once and for all and laid to rest and also to ensure that these repetitive prayers would stand answered and filing of repetitive writ petitions year after year can be avoided. 2. therefore he directed that the writ petitions be placed before the honourable chief justice for appropriate .....

Smt. Durugamma and Others Vs. Shivashankara and Others

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... considering the vintage of the accident (of the year 2005), we also deem it necessary to direct the tribunal to dispose of the remanded matter within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of the production of the certified copy of todays order. ..... it is necessary that the appellants examine the residents of the village or of those persons, whose names figure in the police documents, which are drawn up on the occurrence of the accident in question. 11. .....

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Mini Badtol Dias and Other ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... further, it is held therein that a legal representative is the one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. ..... for his death in the road traffic accident in question, the tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. ..... in an indian family brothers, sisters ,brothers children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the fatal accidents act, 1855 9. ..... it is also not in dispute that the deceased, even though he was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident, was not married. ..... ramanbhai prabhatbhai and another reported in1987 acj 561, wherein it is held that relying upon the provisions of the fatal accidents act, the compensation cannot be denied to the members of the family, if its bread-winner is killed in the accident. .....

Dr. D.K. Seethalakshmi, Vs. the Director Karnataka Institute of Medica ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in : 2012(3)KCCR75(SN)

(prayer: this writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the orders passed by the 6th respondent dated 7.11.2008 vide annexure-e retrospectively absorbing 4th the respondent to the cadre of assistant professor by the 2nd respondent and order dated 30.03.2010 vide annexure-f, order dated 23.07.2010 vide annexure-o order dated 28.02.2006 vide annexure-l. retrospectively redesignating the 5th respondent as assistant professor and etc.) 1. misc. w. 60176 of 2010 for amendment filed in wp no.63874 of 2010 to include the additional pleadings along with annexures and for the additional prayer, allowed, recording the submission of sri. a.c. purad, learned counsel for the fourth respondent who submits that he has no objection for allowing this application, but requests for some more time to get ready to prepare the main case and to further submit on the merits of the matter. 2. the application for amendment even otherwise deserves to the allowed as in the wake of the affidavit supporting the application, petitioner having noticed some subsequent developments which were not within the knowledge of petitioner earlier and which have come into existence subsequently, has sought for relief vis--vis annexures produced along with the application as otherwise the prayer of the petitioner as it stands in the main petition, will be complete and the petitioner will not be able to seek for a proper and effective relief, in this writ petition. .....

Basamma and Others Vs. Devamma and Another

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... to procedure forgetting substance of the matter, particularly, the provisions of the civil procedure code, 1908 weighing heavily upon courts and judges and what with knee jerk amendments carried out to those provisions resulting in accidents and disasters, rather than paving way for a satisfactory resolution of disputes before the court. 16. .....

Mahadevappa and Others Vs. Chikkappa Shivappa Kali and Others

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in : 2012(3)KCCR1897

(prayer: this regular second appeal is filed under section 100 of cpc. against the judgement and decree dated:07/12/2009 passed in r.a.no.60/1985 on the file of the additional civil judge (sr. dn.) gadag, sitting at judgment dated: 07/11/1985 and the decree passed in o.s.no.28/1980 on the file of the munsiff and jmfc., laxmeshwara, decreeing the suit filed for specific performation of contract or for refund of earnest money.) 1. this second appeal by the plaintiff in os no.28 of 1980 a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 7.6.1975 purporting to convey agricultural property measuring 13 acres 20 guntas in r.s. no.57/1 situated at devihal village, for total consideration of rs.3,600/- and a sum of rs.2,000/- had been paid at the time of agreement and balance rs.1,600/- to be paid later, impleading the owner of the land as first defendant and subsequent purchaser of the very property as per the sale deed dated 3.7.1980 exhibit. d1 as second defendant and suing for specific performance. 2. the suit was contested on all aspects and the trial court framed the following issues: i) whether the plaintiff proves that defendant no.1 has agreed to sell the suit land for consideration of rs.3,600/-? ii) whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant no.1 has executed an agreement for sale deed dated 7.6.1975 after receiving earnest money of rs.2,000/-? iii) whether the plaintiff further proves his possession of the suit land for the last 20 years as a tenant first and .....

B. Ramappa and Others Vs. Smt. A. Gangamma and Others

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in : 2012(3)KantLJ295; 2012(2)KCCR1163

(prayer: this writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the impugned orders passed by the assistant commissioner bearing no.kam.parabare:35/05-06 dated: 04/03//2009 (annexure-f) and deputy commissioner order bearing no.sam/kam/appeal/19/2009-10 dated: 26/04/2010 (annexure-g).) 1. purchasers of agricultural land granted to persons belonging to scheduled castes/tribes or depressed classes as were otherwise known prior to such persons being identified or classified as sc/st under the provisions of constitution of india, are a disgruntled and disillusioned lot and with the draconian provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 [for short, the act], loads the dice against such persons who only fight a losing battle before the authorities and tribunals and only possibility being to prolong the litigation as far as possible, so that the enjoyment of the purchased land is also coextensive with the life of litigation! 2. present writ petition is no exception, particularly as the petitioners have a few grounds to urge in this writ petition and are advanced in a very articulate manner by sri v p kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. facts leading to the present petition are that one aralihalli kariyappa had been granted two parcels of lands, one measuring 3 acres 60 cents in sy no 526h as per grant order dated 9-1-1959 and another parcel of land .....

H.D. Shirnal Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

1. misrepresentations, false affidavits, misleading submissions by the litigants and misleading submissions by their lawyers to cling on to a post, more so, if it is a productive post for government officials, who indulge in rampant corruption, is the order of the day. court orders are elicited interim orders, suppressing the real position, misrepresenting something else and based on the subsequent order so obtained; all sorts of atrocities are committed by government and quasi government officials. 2. in this rat race, to keep positions, which are productive for such officials, no effort is spared, no stone is left unturned and courts and court orders are used as a means to achieve such objectives, thereby even bringing disrepute to the judicial system, which ultimately results in the litigant public and the members of the society in general, loosing faith and confidence in the judiciary. 3. the writ petition is not any different from this state of affairs, which prevails in our society. writ petitioner approached this court claiming to be a person working as chief officer, pattan panchayat, bilagi, having so assumed the office as per an appointment order dated 15.06.2010 vide annexure-a, which is a government notification no. (kannada) dated 15.06.2010 issued in the name and as per the order of governor of karnataka, under the name and signature of one c.r. ravindra, under secretary to the government, department of urban development, transferring as many as 23 persons, who .....

Arati Shivaji Kamble and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

(prayer: these writ petitions are filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the order dated 28.10.2009, produced at annexure-a, passed by 2nd respondent and order dated 28.10.2009, produced at annexure-b passed by 2nd respondent as illegal and etc.) 1. these writ petitions by persons who claim to have been appointed as anganawadi workers in terms of annexure d1 to d7 and like orders issued in favour of the writ petitioners, before this court, are all aggrieved that notwithstanding such appointment made in their favour, are now faced with the prospect of termination of their so called appointment in the wake of developments as per annexure-a, communication from the child development project officer, raibag, dated 09.10.2009 addressed to the deputy director, department of women and child welfare at belgaum, having been declined by the deputy director as per refusal of permission dated 28.10.2009 endorsed on the very communication apprising the child development project officer; that as the identification of anganawadi workers has not been made in accordance with the procedure envisaged in the government order no.231 (kannadam) 2006 dated 16.08.2007 and a further like communication dated 28.10.2009 (annexure-b), providing for guidelines in the matter of identification of persons suitable to serve as anganawadi workers and declining permission to proceed further for the appointment of the anganawadi workers whose names had been forwarded by .....