Karnataka Court August 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.
Saleem Vs. State of Karnataka, Mangaluru
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
(Prayer: This CRL.P. is filed under S.482 CR.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 06.06.2015 made in special case No. 72/2015 (Crime NO. 144/2015) pending before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru registered for the offence punishable under S.8(c) punishable under S. 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 and grant statutory bail to the petitioner.) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 06.06.2015 passed in Spl. Case No. 72/2015 (Crime No. 144/2015), pending in the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. 2. The essential facts are that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 1 in Crime No. 144/2015 by the Rural Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences under S. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was apprehended on 01.04.2015 and since then, is in judicial custody. An application filed under S.439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail on merit was dismisse...
General Secretary, Hindustan Latex Limited, Employees Association, Huk ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a registered trade union and seeks to espouse the cause of its members, who claimed to be workmen under the respondent. The respondent is a Government company. The petitioner claims that in the charter of demand, it had raised a demand in respect of 18 workmen, who were appointed as trainees or apprentices, but required to carry out permanent nature of work and were hence claiming permanent status and to be treated as permanent employees under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. They had been appointed as such since the year 1995. The respondent immediately had terminated the services of 18 workmen without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act', for brevity), which amounted to unfair labour practice and illegal retrenchment and accordingly an industrial dispute was raised before the Conciliation Offi...
Sharanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. By SPP High Court of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the Town Police Station Crime No.239/2014 and also the entire proceedings pursuant thereof as against petitioner, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar for the offence punishable under section 7, 8, 12, 13(2), 13(1) and 13(D) of P.C. Act to meet ends of Justice.) 1. An important issue has been raised in the present petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner-Sharanappa is a judicial officer in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge. He is under suspension on serious allegation of misconduct. The said misconduct relates to alleged demand made by him for bribe and receipt of bribe from a party to do official favour in civil cases pending before him. A criminal case has been registered in Crime No.239/14 against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2), 13(1) and 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the respondent-Basavakalyan...
C.T. Thimmiah and Another Vs. Venkateshwara Developers, Pulakeshi Naga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. There is an application for condonation of delay in Writ Appeal No. 2272 of 2014 and connected cases. Learned Advocate fur the respondents submit that they are not opposing the prayer for condonation of delay and submit that the appeals may be considered en merits. 2. Therefore, by consent of the parties, the application for condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. These writ appeals are by the writ petitioners 3 and 4 and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ( ˜BBMPin short) challenging the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated January 20, 2014 in Writ Petition Nos.30279 to 30282 of 2013. 4. The facts are not much in dispute, but interpretation of such facts is surely in dispute. 5. Admittedly, these writ petitioners 3 and 4 were owners of 40 acres of land within Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA). Some time in the year 2010, BBMP wanted to acquire lands outside the BBMP jurisdiction for construction of waste disposal units. Although ...
M/s. Avesthagen Limited Vs. The Regional Provident, Fund Commissioner- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the R-2 vide Annexure-A, etc.) 1. Though this matter is listed for orders, by consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for hearing, heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The 2nd respondent passed an order at Annexure-A dated 28.11.2014 directing the petitioner- Company to pay total sum of Rs.2,17,59,790/- towards contribution under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,(for short 'Act'). The Petitioner filed Review petition vide Annexure-C seeking review of the order. The application was dismissed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-D on 23.2.2015. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the orders at Annexure-A and Annexure-D in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, ...
The Commissioner of Customs, Airport and Air Cargo Complex Vs. M/s. PF ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
(Prayer: The CSTA / Customs and Sales Tax Appeal is filed Under Sec.130 of the Customs Act, praying to set aside the Final Order No.22049/2014 dated: 21/05/2014 in Appeal No. C/610/2012-DB passed by CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, vide Annexure-C.) Vineet Saran, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue-Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, against the order dated 21.05.2014 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-company, which was with regard to payment of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ?), has been allowed. 2. The facts of this appeal in brief are that on 04.06.1998 the respondent-company had imported certain items and cleared the same on payment of customs duty. Later, the respondent realized the mistake of having deposited the customs duty, as the goods which were imported were exempted from customs duty under Notification dated 02.06.1998. Thus, the respondent-company fil...
The Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE13H DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR C.S.T.A. NO.4/2015 BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR PORT AND AIR CARGO COMPLEX, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. .. APPELLANT (BY SRI. C SHASHIKANTHA, ADV., ) AND M/S PFIZER PRODUCTS INDIA PVT. LTD. PFIZER CENTRE, PATEL ESTATE, S.V.ROAD, JOGESHWARI (W), MUMBAI-401102. ... RESPONDENT (By SRI GANAPATI HEGDE & SRI R.G.SHETH, ADVs.,) The CSTA / Customs and Sales Tax Appeal is filed Under Sec.130 of the Customs Act, praying to set aside the Final Order 2 No.22049/2014 dated:21. 05/2014 in Appeal No.C/610/2012-DB passed by CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, vide Annexure-C. THIS CSTA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J.DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the Revenue-Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, against the order dated 21.05.2014 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax A...
sri.saleem Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE13H DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3834/2015 BETWEEN: SRI SALEEM AGED ABOUT36YEARS S/O. BAWA RESIDING AT VALACHIL PADAV VALACHI MANGALURU 575 003. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR RURAL POLICE STATION MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED0606.2015 MADE IN SPECIAL2CASE NO.72/2015 (CRIME NO.144/2015) PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER S.8(c) PUNISHABLE UNDER S.20(b)(ii)(A) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AND GRANT STATUTORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER. THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ...
Yallappa M. Mudukappanavar and Others Vs. Prakash
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
1. The defendants 1 and 3 have called in question the order dated 07-11-2013 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli, in O.S.No.232 of 2010, allowing I.A.No. XI filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Notice to be issued to the respondent is dispensed with. 3. It is seen from the records that, earlier, the plaintiff had filed an application seeking permission of the Court to permit him to be examined through power of attorney holder. But the said application was rejected and in fact, the plaintiff came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 76216 of 2013 wherein this Court by order dated 05-04-2013 observed that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, he is allowed to examine Mahadev G. Agali, as his witness, though not as his power of attorney. Further observed that there is no bar in law in examining such witness in a suit. Therefore, it...
M/s. Manunateswara Stone Crusher and Others Vs. The Deputy Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the respondents herein to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 13/14.3.2014 at Ann-H.) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 13/14.03.2014 at Annexure-H series to the petitions. 2. The petitioners herein were running the Stone Crushing Units in Kodagu District. In view of the decision rendered in the case of Sri Obayya Pujary and Others - vs- The Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others (W.P.No.17078/1997 disposed of on 10.07.1998), the petitioners would not be entitled to run their units in the place where it was located. In view of the directions to relocate such Stone Crushing Units, to regulate the same, the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 ('Act 2011' for short) has been enacted. In view of the provision...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »