Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Jan-13-2011
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. It is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to 1) issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of the Hon’ble Court below dated 18.4.2006 on I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under 0.XXXVIII Rules 5 of C.P.C. in Misc. Petition No.10/2004 vide Annexure-E and order dated 1.2.2007 on the I.A.No.V, filed by the Petitioner under 0.XXXIX R.1 and 2 in Misc. Petition No.10/2004 vide Annexure-G, and to further allow the said applications. 2) Grant such other relief’s as are deemed fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition.) 1. This writ petition is by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter it is referred to as Corporation for the sake of brevity) seeking quashing of the orders dated 18.04.2006 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 respectively in Miscellaneous Petition No.10/2004 by the District and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Feb-28-2011
(Prayer: This Misc First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated: 14.06.2010, passed in M.V.C.No.544/2006, on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, Awarding the compensation of Rs.2,06,896/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.) 1. Appeal by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), to wriggle out of the joint liability in terms of the order and award dated 14-6-2010 passed in MVC No 544 of 2006, on the file of Addl Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, on the most frivolous and cantankerous ground of the person who was driving the vehicle – an autocab – permitted to carry three passengers in addition to the driver, was not duly licenced to drive that vehicle, though such person did hold a valid licence to drive a “transport vehicle” as endorsed on the very licence. 2. It is for making ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Mar-01-2011
(Prayer: This appeal is field u/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2004 passed in MVC.No.54/2001 on the file of the Member, AMACT, Sirsi, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. Appeal by the injured-claimant against the order and award dated 07.02.2004 passed by the Member, Addl. MACT, Sirsi, in M.V.C.No.54/2001 dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed at a sum of Rs.23,520/- by the Tribunal in respect of the injures and the consequential pain and suffering etc., by the injured-claimant attributable to the accident caused by motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA 22/M-885 while it was proceeding from Dandeli Patel Circle. 2. The injured, a daily wage earner lady had claimed compensation of Rs.2 lakhs saying that she has suffered grievous injuries such as crush lacerated wound on upper half of the left leg and other related injuries, that she had been an inpatient at Patel Nursing Home,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Mar-09-2011
Reported in : 2012(2)KCCR1328
(Prayer: This Misc First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of M.V.Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 02.03.2010 passed in MVC No.123/2009. On the file of the Prl. District and sessions judge cum Member, MACT, Bellary, awarding the compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.) 1. Nationalized insurance companies after issuing policies sought to be projected as comprehensive policies covering all sorts of risks of the insured-owners of motor vehicles, when are confronted with awards passed by motor accident claims tribunals at the instance of the injured victims or dependents of a victim who has breathed his last in the accident, come up with all sorts of fantastic grounds and points in an appeal even when having not made good any such defence before the tribunal in spite of extending an opportunity to defend their cases and even without any pleading or supporting material having been made good before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Oct-20-2011
Suri Appa Rao, J 1. This appeal is filed under section 374 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th July, 2011 in S.C. No. 6/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, whereby the appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P.C., sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: The 1st appellant – Halappa Bharama Gavanale is the father of 2nd Appellant – Rama Halappa Gavanale. The family of the deceased No.1 Kallappa owned a land in Hulloli, but he shifted his family to Umarani about 6 years back. The accused and the deceased owned sheep and the accused were grazing their sheep in the land of Thabagouda Shivagouda Patil – PW-9. The accused were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Nov-04-2011
(Prayer: This WP Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order/notification dated:18/10/2010, passed by the first respondent, produced at Annexure-E to this Writ Petition.) 1. This writ petition raises a short, but important question regarding the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of a University under the provisions of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity). The petitioner has assailed the notification dated 18.10.2010 issued by the first respondent-Chancellor produced at Annexure-E and has sought consequential directions. 2. The petitioner is stated to be an eminent academician having obtained M.Sc., in Bio-Chemistry in first class and Ph.D., from Simon Fraser University, Canada. He is said to be the senior most professor in the 4th respondent-Karnatak University(hereinafter, referred to as ‘the University’) established under Section 3 of the Act. The achiev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Jan-07-2011
Reported in : 2011ILR(Kar)760
Plaintiff is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.45/2009 by the III Additional District Judge, Dharwad dated 31/08/2010. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are as under: Appellant instituted a suit in O.S.No.150/2008 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Dharwad for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. It was contended, in the suit that plaintiff has become absolute owner in possession of suit property on the strength of an unregistered sale deed executed by the father of the defendant namely late Sri. Anantappa Mahadevappa Mulagund on 05.09.1971 and when the plaintiff sought for change of his name in the revenue records pursuant to earlier representation which had not been done by the Tahsildar inspite of representation given, Tahasildar gave the endorsem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Mar-03-2011
(This Appeal is filed u/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 30.03.2005 passed in MVC No.999/1995 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional Mact, Ranebennur, awarding compensation of Rs.8,350/- with interest at 6% p.a.) Re: M.F.A.Nos.6005/2005 and 6004/2005 These two appeals by the Insurance Company under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act are directed against the order and award dated 30.03.2005 passed in common MVC Nos.246/1995, 247/1995, 248/1995 and 999/1995 corresponding to M.F.A.No.6005/2005 and MVC No.246/1995 corresponding to M.F.A.No.6004/2005 on the common ground that even when the Insurance Company was not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle, in the present case impleaded as the 2nd respondent in these two appeals on the ground that the Insurance Company has not issued a policy in respect of the offending vehicle a truck bearing No.MCY-4397 causing an accident on 19.01.1999 giving raise to multiple claims. 2. Submission o...
Tag this Judgment!