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.
M.R. Sushma and Others Vs. N. Muniraja and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
(Prayers: This MFA is field U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 07/02/2013, passed in MVC No.9467/2009, on the file of the XI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This MFA is field U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 07/02/2013, passed in MVC No.9467/2009, on the file of the XI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-12), awarding a compensation of Rs.42,77,360/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.) 1. The two appeals respectively by the wife of deceased/Smt. M.R. Sushma/sole claimant and the Insurer and the Cross Objection by the father of the deceased /H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe/cross objector are directed against the same judgment and award dated 7th February 2013, passed in MVC No.9...
Jayanth G. Joshi Vs. The Management of Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 06/02/2006 and the award dated 02/02/2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Bangalore in C.R.No. 16/02 vide Annex-F and H respectively to the extent the petitioner is aggrieved, since the tribunal has committed errors which are apparent on the face of the records and etc.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a clerk in the respondent bank on 10/04/1968. In the year 1975, he was promoted as Specialist Assistant. He was transferred to various branches of the respondent-Bank. He was transferred to Chikodi branch by the letter dated 21/01/1997. He remained absent from duties at Akol branch on 29/01/1997. On 15/02/1997, he was relieved in absentia from Akol Branch but he did not report to duty at Chikodi Branch. He was unauthorisedly absent from 29/01/1997 to 33/08/1997. An explanation was called for. Not being sa...
M/s. JMC Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
(Prayer: These STRPs. are filed under Sec.65(1) of the KVAT Act, against the Judgment dated 27.6.2012 passed in STA No.1104/2009 to 1109/2009 and STAs.1123/2009 to 1128/2009 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the appeals filed under sec.63-a(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.) Vineet Saran, J. 1. This Court by order dated 07.02.2014, having noticed that the Tribunal had framed two questions for its consideration, had admitted these revision petitions to adjudicate the very same questions framed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for adjudication and they read as under: (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the RA had the jurisdiction to invoke revision proceedings U/s. 63-A of the Act? (2) Whether, the turnover relatable to purchases of goods made from dealers availing of composition benefit U/s.15 is deductible from the total contract receipts for purposes of arriving at the taxable turnover? ? 2. The issu...
Smt M R Sushma Vs. N Muniraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF JUNE, 2015, : PRESENT : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA M.F.A.No.3265 OF2013(MV) C/W. M.F.A.No.4597 OF2013(MV) C/W. M.F.A.CROB No.150 OF2013M.F.A.No.3265 OF2013(MV) Between: Smt. M.R. Sushma, W/o. Late Narendra Rajarao Sulakhe, Aged about 31 years, R/at. No.21/61, 3rd B Main, Hampinagar, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore. (By Shri. Shripad.V. Shastri, Advocate) And:1. N. Muniraja, S/o. Narasimhappa, R/at. Beechaganahalli Village & Post, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. ... Appellant 2 2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, No.144, Shubharam Complex, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560 001. By its Manager.3. Shri. H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe, Aged about 62 years, Father of deceased Narendra Sulakhe.4. Smt. Padmavathi, W/o. H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe, Mother of deceased Narendra Sulakhe, Aged 54 years. Both are R/at. No.62, Shree Machine, D.V.G. Road, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur ...
M/S Jmc Projects (India) Ltd Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF JUNE, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR S.T.R.P.NOs.458-469/2012 BETWEEN: M/S JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD., GOLD TOWER, NO.50 II FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020 (REP. BY VP FINANCE SRI NITIN C. PARIKH) PETITIONER (BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI ATUL K. ALUR, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, AGA) THESE STRPs. ARE FILED UNDER SEC.65(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, AGAINST THE IN STA NO.1104/2009 TO11092009 & STAs.1123/2009 TO11282009 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED UNDER SEC.63-A(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003. JUDGMENT DATED276.2012 PASSED THESE STRPs. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:2. ORDER This ...
Emthiyaz Beg Vs. Rakibha Jhan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
(Prayer: This WP filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash/set aside the impugned order dtd. 19.1.2015 M.A.No.29/2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, fast class, Kollegala [Annex-B] and etc.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. With their consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.44/ 11 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Kollegal. The suit is filed for the relief of possession and separate possession against defendants 1 to 6 who have contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit, an application had been filed by the plaintiff seeking an order or temporary injunction against the 7th defendant with regard to alienation of the schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Unfortunately the trial court has granted an order of injunction restraining the 7th defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession o...
B.N. Sreenath Bhat Vs. Jayalakshmi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the Counsel. 2. The present petition has arisen out of an order passed as on interlocutory application i.e., I.A.3 filed in O.S.109/12 under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. by the plaintiff (respondent herein) before the Civil Judge (Junior Div.), Challakere, Chitradurga District. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit for the relief of declaration to the effect that the alleged sale deed dated 4.9.2006 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of the suit schedule premises does not bind them and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3. The suit came to be contested by the 4th defendant only by filing detailed written statement. The 5th defendant had also filed written statement. Issues had not yet been frame...
Jayaram Hegde Vs. Authorized Officer Cum Chief Manager and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act read with rule 27 of the writ proceedings rules praying to set aside the order dated 17.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.51774/2012 (GM-DRT).) 1. This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner-appellant against the Judgment and order dated 17.07.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.51774/2012 whereby the petition has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "Act of 2002'). 2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that: M/s.Anshool Metals Pvt., Ltd., of which the petitioner-appellant is the Chairman cum Managing Director, had taken a loan from the respondent-Canara Bank against which the appellant-petitioner had mortgaged its properties situated in Mumbai in Maharashtr...
V.P. Madaiah @ Ravi Vs. State of Karnataka, Reptd. by its Secretary (R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is piled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dtd.27.1.2015, No. Encroachment 239/14-15 vide Annex-A passed by R-3, by a writ of certiorari.) 1. Facts briefly stated are that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 claim to be related as son and mother, respectively, and trace their lineage to one Vokkaligara Puttaiah, the husband of the 2nd petitioner while another Vokkaligara Sannaiah, the father of the 2nd petitioner. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner during 1957 granted 2 acres, each, to Vokkaligara Puttaiah and Vokkaligara Sannaiah in Sy.No.25/22 as recorded in the order, Annexure 'C', dated 08.07.1988 in Revision Petition No.237/1976 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short), Bangalore, a proceeding, on remand by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction on two occasions in the past. In the Revision Petition, KAT fell in favour of the sympathetic claim that if the said grant is can...
B.N. Sreenath Bhat Vs. Jayalakshmi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the Counsel. 2. The present petition has arisen out of an order passed as on interlocutory application i.e., I.A.3 filed in O.S.109/12 under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. by the plaintiff (respondent herein) before the Civil Judge (Junior Div.), Challakere, Chitradurga District. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit for the relief of declaration to the effect that the alleged sale deed dated 4.9.2006 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of the suit schedule premises does not bind them and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3. The suit came to be contested by the 4th defendant only by filing detailed written statement. The 5th defendant had also filed written statement. Issues had not yet been frame...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »