Karnataka Court November 2011 Judgments
P. Lalithamma and Others Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(This Writ Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.46526/2003 dated 15/12/2005) 1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners in W.P.No.46526/03 being aggrieved by the order dt. 15.12.2005, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to grant the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs claimed by the petitioners as mother, wife and children of Sri P. Sriram and dismissed the Writ Petition. 2. The appellants herein are the mother, wife and children of P. Sriram. It is the case of the petitioners that on 10.2.2003 at about 7 p.m. Sri P. Sriram and his colleague Sri P.B. Rama Mohan Rao were going from East to west direction on 22nd Cross, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore on their scooter bearing No.AP 9 R 6074. At that time the termite infected fully grown up silver oak tree standing on the foot path of 22nd cross suddenly fell on the said scooter due to which Sriram and the pillion rider sustain...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax and Another Vs. M/S. Ranka and Ranka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal deleting the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly allowing the appeal of the assessee. 2. The total tax effect which is the subject matter of this appeal is Rs. 4,87,730/-. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection stating that in view of instruction No. 3/2011 issued on 09.02.2011, the revenue is precluded from filing the appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs, 10 lakhs before the High Court. Therefore, it was contended that as the subject matter of the appeal i.e., the tax effect is Rs. 4,87,730/- which is less than Rs. 10 lakhs, this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. In view of the aforesaid preliminary objection, the same is considered as a preliminary point. 3. The learned Senior Counsel Sri....
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Product, Proprietor Rawat Singh Parihar Represented by His S.P.a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed praying to set aside the impugned order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the leasing trial judge pending on the files of the xviii addl, city civil and sessions judge of city civil unit, bangalore, cch no.10 in o.s.7109/2011 vide annexure-ab in so far as it relates to not granting interim reliefs as prayed for in interlocutory applications no.1 to iii in the said suit and direct the learned trial judge to pass considered orders on the applicatins for temporary injunction. Direct the defendants to render accounts of the defendant no.1 from 2009 till date. Showning its earnings from illegally manufacturing and selling box files bearing trademark “shiv nandi” which is deceptively similar to the trade mark “nandi” of the Petitioner.) 1. In these writ petitions order dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure-AB) passed by XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.A.Nos.1/2011, 2/2011 and 3/2011 in O.S.No.7109/2011 is sought for being quashe...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N. Venkataswamy Reddy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Power and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Section 176(u) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads thus:- “176 (2) (u)the authority to whom the appeal shall be filled under sub-section (1) of section 127” 2. The Central Government framed Rules called as Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004 which is marked at Annexure A. The Rule 3 of the said rules reads thus:- “3. Appellate Authority:-For the purpose of appeal under section 127, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Appellate Authority consisting of one or more persons such that one of the persons shall have knowledge of matters related to assessment of electricity charges and none of them shall be directly related to the affairs of the territorial jurisdiction of the licensee or supplier of the electricity.” 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the purpose of Section 176 (u) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) is to see that Appellate Authority to function...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Mothisham Complexes (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Mrs. Vimala Chandras ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
A.M. Bennur, Member: 1. These are the three appeals filed by Op No.1 in complaint No.506/2011, 507/2011 and 512/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Consumer Forum, Bangalore being aggrieved with the order dated 21/05/2011. As all these appeals have arisen out of the common order referred above, in order to avoid the repetitions of the facts multiplicity of reasoning in the interest of justice all these three appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common order. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2. These complainants with fond hope of having their own flats, booked the flats of their choice in the project floated by the Op in the name and style Motisham LBT Grandeur. Op claims to be the promoter and developer of the multi storied flats. Each one of these complainants made the booking in the year 2006 with respect to their flats and paid lump sum as noted in the chart below for convenience. TABLES Though Op promised to complete the said project in time but i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›