Karnataka Court October 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.V. Gurumurthy Reddy Vs. Sanjeevamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dt. 16.12.2006 passed in R.A. No.6/2000 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed in O.S.No. 187/1991 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing and decreeing the suit for declaration and relief of consequential permanent injunction.) 1. This regular second appeal is preferred by the appellant-defendant No.6 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Fast Track Court No II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A.No.6/2000 upholding the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in O.S.No. 187/1991. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were the...
Raghavendra Holla and Others Vs. Lakshmana Chowta @ Lakshman Shetty an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Is Filed Under Section 482 Of Code Of Criminal Procedure, Praying That This Hon'ble Court Be Pleased To Call For Relevant Records; Set Aside The Order Dated 10.06.2013 Passed By The Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Ii Court), Mangalore In C.C. No. 1862/2013, Thereby Taking Cognizance Against The Petitioners And Issuing Summons Against The Petitioners And Consequently The Entire Proceedings Thereon Vide Document No.3.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. I have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 2. I don't feel it just and necessary to issue any notice to the 1st respondent and the same is dispensed with. 3. On perusal of the records, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein alleging the offences under Sections 504, 341, 447, 506, 323, 324, 354 r/w 149 along with 143, 147 and 148 of I.P.C. The Police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge ...
C.N. Anantharam Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
N. Kumar, J. 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal challenging the finding recorded by the authorities below where in they have held that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of Section 54(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of the land sold by him. 2. The Assessee obtained the site on settlement and constructed a three storied building i.e., ground plus two floors. The first and second floors of the building together with the proportionate share in the land on which the building stands is the subject matter of transaction in question. There is no dispute that the building as such was held by the assessee for a period of less than 36 months prior to the date of transfer. However the land was a long term capital asset. The computation of capital gains as is attributable to the building and the land as set out in the assessment order is not disputed. The land has been treated as long term capital asset and the capital gains treated accordingly. There is no dispute about the cost of...
N. G. Shyamasunder Vs. State by Upparpet Police and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR and charge sheet filed against the petitioner in Crime No.70/2012 and in C.C.No.6631/2013 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.) 1. Heard the learned counsel tor the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the first respondent. Perused the records. 2. Second respondent herein by name Laxmipathi lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner herein has persuaded him and made him to believe that they would get a Government Employment on the quota of physically handicapped and they demanded Rs.50,000/- and infact he paid the said amount to one person by name, Govinda, accused No.1 and infact this petitioner told the complainant to pay that amount to accused No.1. Then the complainant demanded what is the guarantee for their assurance, then the accused have...
G.P. Narashimahaiah Vs. S.B. Shivaji Rao Sindhya and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dt. 10.3.2006 passed in R.A. No.7/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bhadravathi, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2004 passed in O.S.No. 117/1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Addl. JMFC, Bhadravathi.) 1. This regular second appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC., Bhadravathi in R.A.No.7/2004 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2004 passed by the lower Court in C.S.No. 117/1993. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that appellant in this regular second appeal filed the suit before the trial Court against the respondents- defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties to restrain the defendants, their men, agents and servants ...
United Breweries (Holdings) Limited and Another Vs. Bangalore Internat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: Writ Petition Is Filed Under Article 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Impugned Order Dated 30.3.2013 Passed By The Learned Civil Judge, Bangalore City In O.S.No. 8306/2012 On I.A.No.1 As Per Ann-G To The Limited Extent Of The Condition Imposed., Requiring The Petitioner/Defendant To Deposit A Sum Of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- With Interest Accured Thereon At The Rate Of 8% P.A. From The Date Of The Suit As A Condition Precedent For Grant Of Leave To Defend. This Petition Is Filed Under Section 115 Of CPC, Against The Order Dated 30.03.2013 Passed In O.S.No. 8306/2012 On The File Of The Xxvii- Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru Allowing The I.A.No. 1 Filed U/O-Xxxvii, Rule-3(5) R/W Sec. 151 Of Cpc And I.A.No.2 Filed Under Section 151 Of Cpc.) 1. Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by 27th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8306/2012 partly allowing I.A.I filed by defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC and granting leave to defen...
Babu @ Hasan Modi Babu Vs. State by Halasurgate Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, dated 10.3.2014 in C.C.No. 16086/2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and allow the application filed by the petitioner 437(6) of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No. 16086/2013 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City and release the petitioner on bail.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice and is heard. 2. The office has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present petition. The background is that the petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 380, 466, 468, 471, 473, 419, 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter ...
R. Shivaraju and Another Vs. The State Of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: These Crl.Petitions Filed U/S. 439 Cr.P.C Praying To Enlarge The Petitioners On Bail In Crime No.132/14 Of Halasurgate P.S., Bangalore City, For The Offences P/U/S 420, 406, 120(B), 417, 418, 419 R/W Sec. 34 Of Ipc.) 1. Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them with a common order. 2. Crl.P.No.5676/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.5423/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.132/2014. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for t...
Vinod Aloysius Miranda Vs. Angeline Sylvia Sophia Menezes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
(Prayer: Mfa Filed U/S 55 Of The Indian Divorce Act, Against The Judgment And Decree Dated: 03.08.2013 Passed In M.C.No.152/2012 On The File Of The Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangalore, Partly Allowing The Petition Filed U/S 10(1)(Ix)(X) Of Indian Divorce Act.) 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act challenging the order passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court, Mangalore in M.C.No.152/2012 clubbed with M.C.No.245/2012 dated 3.8.2013. 2. The appellant-husband herein was the respondent in M.C.152/2012 filed against him by his wife for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent-husband herein had filed M.C.245/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights. M.C.152/2012 has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty and M.C.245/2012 has been dismissed for relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the husband. 3. Appellant-husband herein will be ref...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Pyramid Timber Associates (P.) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
N. Kumar, J. 1. All these appeals arise out of the common order, where the assessee is common. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of trade in importing timber logs in bulk quantity. The assessee entered into contract with M/s Ply International, USA on 02.09.1993 for import of teak logs of Tanzanian origin by shipment to be made in June and July 1994, as per different terms and conditions mentioned in the contract. The sale was on C and F basis where insurance was to be covered by buyer and freight was to be paid by the seller. The terms of the contract stipulates that once the goods are accepted on inspection, it was to be considered to be sold and held at the risk and responsibility of the importer i.e., assessee company. 3. The assessee company engaged the services of shipping vessel, M V Hazar through the charterer viz., M/s Ummall Quwain (UAE) and booked the consignment. The teak l...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »