Karnataka Court July 2015 Judgments
Sri N H Shivamurthy Vs. Sri Mark Gomez
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF JULY2015BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA WRIT PETITION NOs.8136-37/2015 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION NOs.*8688-89/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI N.H. SHIVAMURTHY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS1SMT. S. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE N.H. SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT56YEARS, 2. KUM. S. DEEPTHI MURTHY, D/O LATE N.H. SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT26YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT, NO.56, 3RD MAIN, TEACHERSS COLONY, NAGARABHAVI CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 072. PETITIONERS (BY MISS DIVYA KRISHNA FOR M/S.SHIVAN & SHIVAN ADV.) AND:1. SRI. MARK GOMEZ, S/O JANVAR GOMEZ, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, R/AT. TC-11/2735, *Corrected vide Court Order dated 14.10.2015 2 AF(4) APRTMENT, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, PATTOM, PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE AND ALSO RESIDING AT: SREE KRISHNA BHAVAN NORTH KAZHA KUTTOM-PO TRIVANDRAM DISTRICT, PIN-696 682. KERALA STATE. GPA HOLDER OF1SMT. URSILA W/O LATE TENNYSON FERNADEZ, 2.SRI. MARCOSE S/O LATE TENNYSON FERNANDEZ, 3. SRI JOHN JEFFRY ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivananda B Nagur Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH ON THE30H DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2772/2011 & WRIT PETITION NOs.69822-69826/2012 (S-KAT) BETWEEN1 2.3.4. SHIVANANDA B NAGUR, OCC/O ASST. PRIMARY, AGED34YEARS, R/O G HULIKATTI, TQ: KALAGATAGI, DIST-DHARWAD. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL S/O SHIVANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT41YEARS, OCC-ASSISTANT PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, AT MUGAD JP, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD, SMT. LILAVATI S ITAGI, AGED ABOUT33YEARS, OCC-ASSISTANT PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER , GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, AT BYAHATTI, TQ : HUBLI. DIST. DHARWAD. SMT.LAXMI L SATALURI. AGED ABOUT31YEARS, OCC-ASSISTANT PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, :2. : GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, AT ALNAVAR TQ & DIST. DHARWAD., 5. SHIVAPPA VIBHUTI S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT31YEARS, OCC-ASSISTANT PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, AT HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.6. MAHESH BAJENTRI S/O CHANABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT3...
Tag this Judgment!Sham A. Nemical Vs. Canara Bank, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 8-2-2001, whereby the departmental enquiry was initiated with the submission of charge-sheet, aggrieved by the order dated 3-8-2001, whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed, and equally aggrieved by the order dated 24-9-2002, whereby the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner namely, Mr. Sham N. Nemical was an employee of the Canara Bank. He had honestly served the bank for 20 years. In the year 2000, the bank had introduced a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme. In the year 2001, the petitioner had opted for the same. But, before his option could be exercised, on 8-2-2001, he was served with articles of charges. The Petitioner submitted his reply. The bank appointed one Mr. Parthasarathy as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding a complete enquiry found the petitioner guilty of ch...
Tag this Judgment!Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
1. The judgment and order of conviction dated 15-9-2010 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C. No. 288 of 2008 has been called in question in this appeal by the appellant-accused. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the case are that one Smt. Siddamma alias Rukmini, W/o. Shivanna resident of Chikkadanahalli in Hunsur Taluk gave her statement as per Ex. P.17 stating that her native place is Paduvarahalli but since 16 years she is residing in her husband's house at Chikkadanahalli. They are having three daughters, first daughter is Chandini, aged 13 years, second daughter Mamatha, aged 11 years and third daughter Poornima aged 9 years. The eldest daughter Chandini is staying in the house of her grandfather at Paduvarahalli. Herself, her husband and other two daughters are together staying in Chikkadanahalli. The ancestral land of three acres has been sold by her husband and husband's brothers at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. And, from the sale procee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax III, Central Revenue Buildings, Bangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
(Prayer: Appeals are filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act praying to set aside the order dated 20.12.2013 in ITA 1209 and 1168/Bang/12 by the ITAT, A Bench, Bangalore for the assessment year 2007-08.) The moot question in these appeals is whether an assessee can sub-contract a part of its software development work to an agency outside India and yet claim the income there-from as its income eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act'). These appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by which the assessee/respondent has been held eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The assessee company is engaged in the business of development of software and is also rendering business process outsourcing services. For relevant assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had declared an income of Rs. 2,52,18,171/-. However, during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Asses...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. M/s. Maruthi Subray Pat ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
(Prayer: This ITA is filed u/s.260 a of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against Order dtd:25/11/2009 passed in I.T.A.No.86/PNJ/2009 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, partly allowing the appeal and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum for the assessment year 2005-06.) G. Narendar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under the provisions of Section 260A of ITA Act, 1961, arising out of the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji in ITA No.86/PNJ/2009, praying that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: I) Formulate the substantial questions of law and further has stated hereinafter; II) Allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITA No.86/PNJ/2009, dated 25.11.2009, whereby the order of the appellate Commissioner dated 30.03.2009 confirming the order of the assessing officer was set aside and confirm the assessment of the assessing authority fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kshama Hegde and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
1. These are appeals against the judgment and order dated June 15, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Miss Kshama Hegde and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others, Writ Petition Nos. 42517 and 42518 of 2014. 2. A suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura Sub-Division, Udupi District, under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. An order was passed. We are informed that no opportunity was granted to the writ petitioners before passing of the order by the Assistant Commissioner. 3. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, curiously, held that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to initiate proceeding under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the said Act, but held that as the order was passed under good intention only, the order would not be interfered with. 5. The writ petitions against such an order of the Deputy Commissioner were, also...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs. M/S Mphasis Software and Services
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 29th day of July, 2015 Present THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN & THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Income Tax Appeals 263 264 / 2014 Between Appellants Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12 (1), Bangalore Commissioner of Income Tax III Central Revenue Buildings Queens Road, Bangalore 1 1 2 (By Sri E I Sanmathi, Adv.) And M/s Mphasis Software & Service India Pvt Ltd Bangalore 560 093 (By Sri T Suryanarayana a/w Ms Tanmaye Rajkumar, Adv. For M/s King & Patridge, Adv.) Appeals are filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act praying to set aside the order dated 20.12.2013 in ITA1209& 1168/Bang/12 by the ITAT, A Bench, Bangalore for the assessment year 2007-08. delivered the following: Appeals coming on for hearing this day, Vineet Saran J, Respondent 2 JUDGMENT The moot question in these appeals is whether an assessee can sub-contract a part of its software development work to an agency outside India and yet claim the in...
Tag this Judgment!Honamma Vs. C.H. Honnegowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India this W.P. is filed praying to quash/set aside the order dtd. 04.06.2014 passed Jon Interlocutory application in FDP No. 08/1990 pending on the file JOF Hon'ble Principle Civil Judge and Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, vide Annx-A etc.) 1. The order dated 4.6.2014 passed on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC filed in FDP 8/1990 pending on the file of Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere is called in question in the present petition. 2. The petitioner herein, was the first applicant and had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to come on record as respondent to the said final decree proceedings on the ground that she has a share in the suit schedule property in view of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, which has come into effect from 9.9.2005. The said application has been dismissed by a considered order dated 4.6.2014. Hence, the present petition is filed...
Tag this Judgment!M.Y. Reddyappa Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 02/11/2011, passed in MVC No.7796/2010, on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 2nd November 2011, passed in MVC No.7796/2010, by the 14th Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), (for short, 'Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.2,26,160/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs.25,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 32 years and an agriculturist and also mason by profession, earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 2:3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »