Karnataka Court June 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Dinesh D Ranka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF JUNE, 2015 R PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR I.T.A. No.75/2009 BETWEEN:1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-2(3) C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel for appellants) .. Appellants 2 AND : Sri Dinesh D. Ranka 3rd Floor, Ranka Chambers No.31, Cunnigham Road Bangalore-560052 ..Respondent (By Sri S. Parthasarathi, Adv.,) This appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arising out of the order dated 10.10.2008 passed in ITA No.1163/Bng/2007, for the assessment year 1999-2000. This appeal is filed praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated in the appeal and to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and confirm the order of...
Sandya Goni Vs. State of Karnataka, by its Prl. Secretary Home Departm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to direct 3rd respondent police to produce the daughter of the petitioner Ms Shreya Goni who has been illegally detained by the 5th respondent before this Court.) This is an unfortunate case where a young girl aged about 13 years is torn between her two parents. The admitted facts are that since the year 2010 after the separation of the two parents, being the petitioner (mother) and respondent 5 (father), the child Ms Shreya remained in the custody of her mother. After separation, the petitioner and respondent 5 reside separately but opposite each other's houses in different apartments. It is not disputed that during this period, while the daughter Ms Shreya stayed with her mother, she used to visit her father. But, as per the statement of respondent 5 made before this Court, she never stayed overnight with her father. ƒ It was on 8.5.2015 that respondent 5 (father of the girl) sent an SMS (message on th...
ZYGO Flowers Limited, Anthrahalli Post, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Dist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to consider the application dated 25-3-2010 vide Annexure-Q submitted by the petitioners for One Time Settlement Scheme ( ˜OTS Scheme') and consequently to dispose of the application. To enable such consideration, the petitioners have also sought that the communication of rejection dated 26-4-2010 (Annexure-R) be quashed. 2. The petitioners had availed certain financial assistance from the respondent-Board to carry on its business in Floriculture. The fact that the petitioners were unable to repay the amount as per the schedule due to certain difficulties encountered in the course of their business activities is not in dispute. However, the respondents taking note of the difficulties of the persons who had obtained financial assistance from the respondent-Board had brought into effect the guidelines for one time settlement of Soft Loan Recoveries. 3. The petitioners in order to take benefit of the s...
Padmanabha Rao Vs. The Taluka Magistrate/Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk Post, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
1. 2nd respondent having submitted a requisition vide Annexure-B to the first respondent, impugned notice, as at Annexure-D was issued by the first respondent, the petitioner, to appear before him, on 26-12-2012 at 3 p.m. for passing orders with regard to the matter stated in the said requisition (Annexure-B). Seeking quashing of Annexure-A, FIR and also the requisition of the 2nd respondent, submitted to the first respondent, vide Annexure-B, this petition was filed on 2-1-2013. By an interim order dated 15-3-2013, further proceedings of the case pending on the file of the first respondent was stayed. 2. On date this petition was field, W.P. Nos. 30466 to 30468 of 2012 filed by the petitioners against respondent 3 and others, assailing the order dated 18-8-2012 passed in R.P. No. 459 of 2010-2011 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District was pending. The said writ petitions have been allowed on 10-9-2013 and the impugned order therein having been set aside, the matter was remande...
Bharatitya Adima Jatti Vs. Sanjeevappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
(Prayer: This CRP is filed U/S.115 of CPC., praying to (a) set aside the order dated: 20.04.2015 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and 1st Addl. JMFC, Renebennur on IA NO. 14 in OS No. 298/2013 filed by the petitioner and dismiss the suit for want of Jurisdiction and (b) Consequently allow the Application filed by the Petitioner under IA No.14 in OS No.298/2013 filed by the Petitioner for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. 1. The petitioner/defendant filed the above Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 20.04.2015 on I.A. No.14 in O.S. No. 298/2013, dismissing the application as not maintainable, holding that the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the plaintiff in the present from. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.298/2013 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties, contending that he is the owner, in possession of the suit properties in question, based on a registered sale d...
M. Raghavendra Vs. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Pali ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
1. The petitioner, Mr. Raghavendra M., is aggrieved by the order dated 27-1-2015 with regard to endorsement dated 27-1-2015 and by letter dated 21-5-2015 passed by the Health Officer (West), B.B.M.P. By the former order, the respondent 3 had informed the petitioner that his trade licence is temporarily withheld. By the later order the respondent 3 had directed the petitioner to close his business of distribution of goods within a period of three days, failing which action would be taken by the BBMP under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a distributor of Nestle India products like baby foods, chocolates and coffee to various retailers in and around Nagarbhavi and Kengeri areas. He commenced his business after obtaining necessary registration and licence from the Sales Tax Department. While he was carrying on the distribution activities, some of the residents of the area filed a complaint before the respondent 3 cla...
Srilatha M. Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka Represented By Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the licensing authority R5 to issue a saw mill license to the Applicant/Petitioner forthwith, as per the findings given by the "Appellate Authority" vide Ann-F, dt.27.4.05 pursuant to the order dt.9.11.2004, in WP.No/41780/04 vide Ann-E.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the licensing authority - Respondent No.5 to issue a Saw Mill license to the applicant/petitioner forthwith, as per the findings given by the Appellate Authority as at Annexure 'F' pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.41780/2004 2. The petitioner is the Legal Representative of P. Mahim Kumar Hegde, who during his lifetime had applied for the grant of a license on 15.12.1996, to establish a Saw Mill in terms of Rule 163 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The Saw Mill was sought to be established in the name and style of 'Ratna Wood and Polishing Indust...
G.B.T. Manjula and Others Vs. The Chief Zonal Manager Indane Oil Corpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dt.6.12.2013 issued by the R-1 for selection of R-2 as Rajeev Gandhi Gramina L.P.G. Vitaraka (RGGLV) for Teligi Village of Harapanahalli Tq., as per Annx-L, consequently declare the selection of the R-2 is illegal direct the R-2 and 3 are ineligible for selection of Rajeev Gandhi Gramina L.P.G. Vitaraka (RGGLV) for Teligi Village of Harapanahalli Tq., as per Annx-A and direct the R -1 to select any of the petitioner in this W.P. to select as Rajeev Gandhi Gramina L.P.G. Vitaraka (RGGLV) for Teligi Village of Harapanahalli Tq., as per Annx-A.) 1. Though the petitions are listed for consideration of the applications for vacating stay; with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions were heard on merits and the same is being disposed of on merits. 2. The petitioners are assailing the communication dated 6.12.2013 issued by the first respondent ...
The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition 6212/2012 dated 31.01,2013.) 1. The order dated 31.1.2013 passed in WP.No 6212/2012(Excise) is called in this intra-Court appeal. 2. The respondent herein was granted CL-2 licence for vending liquor in premises No.315, Nala Road, Martalli Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District prior to 1992. Because of the Law and Order problem created by the forest brigand Veerappan in and around certain area of Kollegal Taluk, a Notification came to be issued by the State Government on 23.5.1.992, directing the closure of wine shops in 26 villages including Martalli Village wherein respondent was running his wine shop by securing CL-2 licence, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The Notification specifically stated that such closure would be until further orders. It is not in dispute that the said Notifica...
V. Anjaneya Reddy Vs. Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC praying to set aside the impugned order made by second Additional City Civil Judge, at Bangalore in Ex.No.811/2002, dt21.04.2011 vide Annexure-A and etc.) 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the executing Court dismissing the Execution Petition No.811 /2002 as barred by time. 2. The execution petition was filed on 09.04.2002 seeking enforcement of judgment and award passed by the reference Court in LAC No.467/1983 disposed of on 31.07.1985. 3. The claimant sought recovery of a sum of Rs.23,611.00. Earlier, on three occasions execution petitions were filed by the revision petitioner. E.P.No.162/1986 came to be disposed of on 19.03.1986; E.P.No.1127/1991 came to be disposed of on 22.03.1993 and E.P.No.620/1993 was disposed of on 27.06.1997. The present execution petition being the fourth petition was filed on 09.04.2002. ƒ 4. The petition was contested ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »