Karnataka Court August 2014 Judgments
Hanumanthappa Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.12620/2009 dated 22/05/2012.) 1. This writ appeal is by the 4th respondent in the writ petition challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.12620/2009, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated as under: The father of Manjappa and seven others were granted different bit of lands in Sy.No.38 of Sanyasikodamagge village, Holehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District by the Tasildar, Bhadravathi vide order dated 25-09-1976 under the Land Grants Rules of 1969 on a condition that the grantees should bring the lands under cultivation within 2 years from the date of grant and they should not alienate the lands for a period of 15 years from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Labhuram Vs. Prakash Hegde and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
(Prayer: This Crl.P Filed U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. By The Advocate For The Petitioners Praying That This Hon'ble Court May Be Pleased To Set Aside The Order Dated 05.7.2012 Passed By The Jmfc Suliya In Pcr No. 94/2012 Produced At Annexure-A Taking Congnizance Of The Complaint Filed By Repondent No.1 Dated 05.7.2012 Produced At Annexure-E And The Order Dated 31.7.2013 Passed By The Jmfc, Suliya In Pcr No. 94/2012 Taking Cognizance Of The Offence And Ordering For Registering Crl. Case Against The Petitioner Herein Which Is Numbered As C.C.No. 659/2013 Produced At Annexure - B.) 1. Petitioner is a combatant police officer of the State Government presently serving as the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime),Bangalore. He has brought in question initiation of prosecution against him and others on the complaint of the 1st respondent-Prakash Hegde for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 330, 504 and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in PCR.94/12 vide Annexure-A. 2. Upon pri...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Dead By L.Rs and Another Vs. Basavanyappa Dead By Lrs and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For The Records In The Ex. Case No.15/10 On The File Of Civil Judge And Jmfc, Shikaripur And Set Aside The Order Of The Civil Judge And Jmfc, Shikaripur Dated 17.12.2011 Made On Ia No.1 And Ia No.2 Being Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Erroneous And Opposed To Law Equity And Justice Vide Annexure-A.) 1. These are the plaintiffs' writ petitions challenging the common order passed by the Executing Court, on I.A.No.1, an application filed under Section 28(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and I.A.No.2, an application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. Defendant is the owner of the property, which is morefully described in the schedule and hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule property'. The schedule property is a vacant site. The plaintiffs enter...
Tag this Judgment!Nayaz @ Razak and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. By The Advocate For The Appellants Praying To Set Aside The Conviction And Sentence Dated:09.01.2009 Passed By The Sessions Judge, Udupi In S.C.No.78/06- Convicting The Appellants/Accused For The Offence Punishable Under Sections 86 And 87 Of Karnataka Forest Act And Sentencing Them To Undergo R.I. For A Period Of 5 Years And Pay A Fine Of Rs.50,000/- Each And In Default To Undergo S.I. For A Period Of Six Months For The Offence Punishable Under. Section 86 Of The Karnataka Forest Act, Further Sentenced To Undergo R.I. For A Period Of 5 Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs.50,000/- Each And In Default To Undergo S.I. For A Period Of 6 Months For The Offence Punishable Under Section 87 Of The Karnataka Forest Act. The Sentence Of Imprisonment Shall Run Concurrently And Fine Shall Run Consecutively.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the appellants praying to set aside the convict...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Annathaiah Vs. Smt Gangamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR W.P. NO.466 OF2012(GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI ANANTHAIAH S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/AT UPPALLI, INDAVARA POST CHIKMAGALUR TQ & DIST ...PETITIONER (By Sri VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND1 2.3. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE DASAIAH AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SRI LINGARAJU S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT35YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SRI MOHAN S/O SIDDAIAH4 5.6. 7.8. 2 AGED ABOUT33YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SMT GANGAMMA D/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT41YEARS R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SMT SHOBHA AGED ABOUT31YEARS D/O SIDDAIAH R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SMT DEVEERAMMA W/O MAHADEVAKRISHNA @ MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT62YEARS R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SMT MUTHAMMA W/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O III CROSS, SHANKARAPURA CHIKMAGALUR SRI CHANDRASHEKARA S/O MU...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Labhuram Vs. Sri Prakash Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRL.P No.5865 OF2013BETWEEN SRI. LABHURAM S/O. SRI. GORDHAN RAM AGED ABOUT36YEARS R/AT. NO.5, POLICE QUARTERS BEHIND JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE PRESENTLY WORKING AS DY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CRIME) BANGALORE (BY SRI. PRASANNA, ADV., FOR V. RAMESH BABU, ADV.,) ..PETITIONER AND1 SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE S/O. RATHNARAJ HEGDE AGED ABOUT47YEARS R/A. SULIYA GRAMA SULIYA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA.2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECTUR ..RESPONDENTS2(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, FOR R1, SRI. NASRULLAH KHAN, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED057.2012 PASSED BY THE JMFC SULIYA IN PCR No.94/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TAKING CONGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY REPONDENT NO.1 DATED057.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash Order Issued By The 3r0 Respondent In Relation To The 1st Petitioner Bearing F.No.Aaccs74c5c/W-11(1)/179/13- 14 Dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure-N), And Order Issued By The 3rd Respondent In Relation To The 2nd Petitioner Bearing F.No.Aaccs7485c/W-11 (1)/179/13-14 Dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure-N1) And Etc.) H.G. Ramesh, J.Oral Order: 1. These writ petitions are directed against the two orders dtd, 14.11.2013 passed by respondent No.3. By the impugned orders, the petitioners, who are directors of a Private Company by name Sunray Computers (P) Ltd. are directed to pay the tax due relating to the said company. 2. I have heard Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K.V. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned orders. 3. The sole contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that the impugned orde...
Tag this Judgment!Sri a S Chinnaswamy Raju Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
WP.Nos.7212-7213 & 7880/2014 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF AUGUST2014BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.7212-7213 & 7880/2014 (T-IT) R SRI A.S.CHINNASWAMY RAJU S/O LATE AKKALA RAJU AGED ABOUT83YEARS DIRECTOR, M/S SUNRAY COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 BETWEEN:1. 2. (BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI S SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110 00 THROUGH THE SRETARY SRI C.S.SUNDER RAJU S/O A.S.CHINNASWAMY RAJU AGED ABOUT57YEARS DIRECTOR, M/S SUNRAY COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 ... PETITIONERS WP.Nos.7212-7213 & 7880/2014 -2 - 2.3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Raman Boards Ltd., rep. by its Asst. Vice President, Finance and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
(Prayer: These Sales Tax Revision Petitions are filed under Sec.65(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, against the judgment dated:29.06.2012 passed in STA. Nos.2394 to 2440/2011 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, partly allowing the appeals.) N. Kumar, J. 1. These revision petitions are filed against the judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed in STA Nos.2394 to 2440 of 2011 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, by partly allowing the appeals. 2. The petitioner - assessee is common in all the petitions. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act) and the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act). The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and selling Paper and Paper Board which includes Electrical Insulated Press Board, commonly known as High Density Board. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, Electrical Insulated Press Board manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay P. Naidu Vs. Rupreka Bhaskar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
(Prayer: This Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dated 3.2.2014 On I.A. Filed By The Petitioner Herein Under Section 10 Read With Section 151 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure In M.C.No.1120/2013 On The File Of The Court Of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, I.E., Annexure-A And Consequently Grant The Relief Sought For In The Said I.A. I.E., Annexure-H.) 1. The parties were married on 17.06.2010. Petitioner filed M.C.No.43/2013, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act'), in the Family Court at Bangalore, to grant a decree declaring the marriage solemnized on 17.06.2010 as a nullity. Respondent filed M.C.No.1120/2013, under Section 13(1)(i) and (i-a) of the Act, in the Family Court at Bangalore, to grant a decree of divorce. 2. Petitioner filed I.A., under Section 10 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, on 03.02.2014, in M.C.No.1120/2013, to stay all further proceedings of the case, till disposal of M.C.No.43...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »