Karnataka Court December 2015 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.
Late Hanumappa and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka rep. by its Reven ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
(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. 30602/98 dated 14/10/2008.) Vineet Saran, J. The dispute in the present appeal relates to Sy.No. 91 (measuring 4.15 acres) and Sy.No. 92 (measuring 8.23 acres) situate in Chikkagubbi village, Bangalore South Taluk, which is being claimed by the appellant on the basis of being in occupation as on the appointed dated i.e., 1.3.1974. The owner of the said survey numbers was respondent No.3-Smt. Puttaboramma. The said survey numbers were sold by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 Smt. Sajida Begum by registered sale deed dated 26.4.1978. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant claims to have filed an application on 3.12.1974 in Form No.7. relating to Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 3.12.1974 with regard to the disputed survey numbers as well as certain other survey numbers also. The Tribunal, by it...
V. Damothiran Vs. Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated May 23, 2013 passed by the first respondent in ENQ.No.29/12 vide Annexure-C and quash the order dated June 27, 2013, passed by the first respondent in ENQ. No.29/12 vide Annexure-J and to expunge the recording the depositions of the petitioners in the proceedings of May 23, 2013 as recorded by the first respondent, in ENQ.No.29/12, vide Annexure-C.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was married to Smt. Rani, who is said to have been a patient of the second respondent, a Gynaecologist. It is alleged that on account of negligence on the part of the said respondent in performing a Laparoscopic procedure on Smt Rani, she is said to have died after much suffering, on 28.7.2013. On a complaint by the petitioner before the jurisdictional police, apart from initiating criminal proceedings again...
Sri Late Hanumappa Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE3d DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1818 OF2008[LR]. BETWEEN: SRI. LATE HANUMAPPA S/O LATE MUNIKEMPANNA AGED ABOUT83YEARS R/O. CHIKKEGUBBI VILLAGE BIDARHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. SINCE DEAD BY LRs:1. a). PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SRI. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT56YEARS. 1(b). KEMPANNA S/O LATE SRI. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT52YEARS. 1(c). CHIKKAPPAIAH S/O LATE SRI. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT49YEARS. 2 D/O SRI. LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT43YEARS. D/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT43YEARS. S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT45YEARS. D/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT47YEARS. 1(d). SHANKUTALAMMA1e). NARAYANASWAMY1f). RAMAKKA1g). LAKSHMAMMA1h). SHOBHA1i). PRAKASH (BY SRI: B.V. RAMAN, ADVOCATE) AND:1. D/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT40YEARS. S/O LATE HANUMAPPA THE COURT ORDER AGED ABOUT38YEARS. DT:12/4/2012 AMENDED AS PER ... APPELLANTS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY I...
Rajanaika Vs. Umesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE03D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.3950/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RAJANAIKA S/O LATE KADANAIKA AGED ABOUT49YEARS R/AT SULEKOTE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107 MYSORE DISTRICT. (BY SRI.LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER UMESH S/O RAJANAIKA AGED ABOUT22YEARS R/AT SULEKOTE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107 MYSORE DISTRICT. SMT. MARIYAMMA S/O RAJANAIKA AGED ABOUT42YEARS R/AT SULEKOTE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107 MYSORE DISTRICT. (BY SRI.S. VICTOR MANOHARAN, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS AND:1. 2. 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED312.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7, FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION45R/W56OF EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION151OF CPC IN O.S.NO.170/2010, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE D...
National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
-:1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE03D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA Writ Petition Nos.2642/2009 (GM-MM-S) c/w 44793/2013, 13595/2008, 13516/2008, 13654/2008, 13803/2008, 14157/2008, 14802/2008, 30927/2008, 30928/2008, 30995/2008, 31128/2008, 31129/2008, 31141/2008, 31142/2008, 31143/2008, 31144/2008, 31145/2008, 31146/2008, 31147/2008, 31148/2008, 31149/2008, 31152/2008, 31181/2008, 31183/2008, 31188/2008, 31189/2008, 31191/2008, 31227/2008, 31228/2008, 31229/2008, 31230/2008, 31234/2008, 31235/2008, 31266/2008, 31327/2008, 31439/2008, 31577/2008 (GM-MM-S), 368/2009 (GM-FOR), -:2. :- 863/2009, 6721/2009, 10712/2009, 16237/2009, 35251/2009 (GM-MM-S), 60230/2009 (GM-FOR), 15782/2010, 15795/2010, 15809/2010, 15825- 15826/2010, 15953/2010, 15954/2010, 15984/2010, 15985/2010, 15990/2010, 15991/2010, 16145/2010, 16144/2010, 16147/2010, 17000/2010, 17001/2010...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Represented by its Manager, Bangalore Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
(This MFA is filed u/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2011 passed in MVC No. 2964/2010 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,11,350/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.2,01,350/- (Excluding future Medical Expenses) from the date of petition till payment.) Oral: 1. This appeal is by an Insurer and is directed against the judgment and award of the tribunal making the appellant-Insurer, owner, and the lessee (BMTC) of the insured bus jointly and severally liable for the compensation of Rs.2,11,350/- and interest awarded to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.03.2007. The claimant was hit by the bus from behind while he was riding his motorcycle, resulting in injuries to him. 2. The sole contention urged by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the liability saddled on the appellant is a contractual liabilityand hence, is not required to be covered in law ...
Cheluvaraju Vs. The Manager M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
(This MFA filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2010 passed in MVC No.3544/2007 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral) "The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." The above observation made by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013)12 3CC 649 vide para 22.4.(d)] is quoted as it is relevant in the context of a large number of appeals preferred by claimants against awards of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals with huge delays. In the present appeal, the delay is two years. 2. What amounts to 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay in preferring an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal? This is the question tha...
Autograde International Private Limited and Others Vs. The State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
(Prayer: W.P.41561/2015 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned public notice dated 29.8.2015 at Annexure-B published in the newspaper on 5.9.2015, and etc. W.P.47497/2015 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the checklist / eligibility criterion at Annexure-C, prescribed by the respondents and etc.) 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in the first of these petitions in WP 41561/2015, M/s Autograde International Private Limited, is said to be a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of Speed Limiting Devices, also known as Speed Governors. The said devices are intended to confine the maximum speed of the motor vehicle, to which it is fitted, to the speed limit set on the device. The speed limit so set is as notified by the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act, for brev...
Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, HMT Bhavan, Bangalore and Another Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT in ITA 1084/Bang/2008 on 27.2.2009, etc.) 1. The present appeal relates to the assessment year 2002-03 and has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2009. Facts in brief are that the respondent assessee M/s. Bharat Hotels Ltd., has a unit known as M/s. Grand Ashok, Bangalore, which was taken over by the assessee from Kumarakrupa Frontier Hotels (Pvt) Ltd (for short KKFHPL) on lease for a period of thirty years, starting from November, 2001. Since this appeal relates to the assessment year 2002-03 i.e., financial year 2001-02, the period relevant for the purpose of this appeal would be four months from 1st December, 2001 to 31st March, 2002. The admitted facts are that under an agreement between the respondent-assessee Bharat Hotels Ltd and KKFHPL, a license fee of Rs. 4.11 crores per annum was to be paid as a minimum gu...
The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore Vs. M/s. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
(Prayer: This CEA is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, arising out of order dated 17.6.2009 passed in Final Order No. 21966/2014 praying to: I. Decide the substantial Questions of Law formulated at para 6 of the Appeal Memo; II. Set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 236/2009 dated 17.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore vide Annex-B and etc.,) 1. This appeal is directed against the final order No. 21966/2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. 2. The facts in brief are that during the course of audit by the Departmental Audit Party, it was noticed that the respondent had availed input service tax credit during the period July 2005 to March 2007 on i) repair charges; ii) repair of company vehicles; iii) rent a cab services used for transportation of staff/guests; iv) credit taken on invoices which did not bear Sl.No. and registration certificate etc.; pursuance to which,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »