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.
D. Puttegowda and Others Vs. G.T. Devegowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 31005/2015 dated 28.7.2015.) 1. By consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties, we take the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are against judgment and order dated July 28, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31005 of 1995. By the order impugned, the Hon'ble Single Judge, inter alia, passed an interim order saying the operation of the order dated July 23, 2015 passed by the Returning Officer for Election of the Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited, rejecting the nomination of the candidature of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in these appeals, for election of the Board of Directors of the said Federation. 3. The writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in the appeals, is a member of the respondent No. 8 - Srikanteshwara Multi-purpose Co-operative Society. He was co-opted as a Di...
M/s. Soundrya Silk Process Vs. The Authorized Officer and Chief Manage ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the order passed by the 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18.01.2013, in Crl. Misc. 8428/2012 vide Ann-G and etc.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.01.2013 impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioner had also sought that the respondent-bank be directed not to proceed further under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 2. The fact that the petitioner had borrowed the loan amounting to a sum of Rs. 98,00,000/- is the accepted position. The fact that the petitioner had not discharged the entire loan cannot also be disputed. It is in that light, the respondent-bank having treated the account as NPA proceeded further to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In that light, they had filed the petition under Section 14 of the said Act seeking to take physical possession of the property that had been mortgaged. The peti...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Others Vs. M/s. H.M. Exp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
(Prayer: This ITA is filed under Sec. 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated 30.04.2008 passed in IT(SS)A. No. 26/BANG/2007, for the Block Assessment period 1.4.1991 to 29.05.2001, praying to I. Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II. Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in IT(SS)A. No. 26/BANG/2007, dated 30.04.2008 confirming the order of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3), Bangalore.) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 30.04.2008 whereby the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of this case are that for the assessment year 1994-95 the appellant had an income of Rs. 88,00,505/- from the export of exhibition rights of cinematographic films, for which there was no return filed by the appellant. In the year 1997, the Government came up with a Voluntary Disc...
Ramappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. The petitioner has called into question the preliminary notification dated 08-11-2006 and the final notification, dated 14-03-2007 (Annexures-G and L respectively) acquiring the petitioner's land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas for providing burial ground to the people of Basava Hanchinal. 2. Sri Mahantesh Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquisition of the land in question would have the effect of depriving the petitioner of his solitary source of livelihood. He submits that the land in question is a fertile agricultural land. He submits that there is already a burial ground just 2 kms. Away from the petitioner's land. He submits that the whole exercise of acquiring the land is at the instance of the 3rd respondent MLA. 3. Sri Ravi V. Hosmani, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the statement that the petitioner has no other land is not correct. In addition to the land in question, the petitioner ow...
N. Renukaraj Vs. State Bank of Mysore, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to Quash Annex-J the E-Auction sale notice issued by the R-5 Dtd 19.1.2015 in DCP 2573 in O.A.No.882/1998 and also to Quash the orders of the Recovery Officer Dtd 19.1.2015 and 23.1.2015 vide Annex-M to the W.P. passed by the R-5 in DCP 2573 in O.A.No. 882/1998.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the e-auction sale notice dated 19-1-2015 in DCP No. 2537, in OA No. 882 of 1998. In that regard, the petitioner is also assailing the order dated 23-01-2015 passed by the Recovery Officer at Annexure-M, whereby the sale has been ordered. The petitioner claims that he was not a party to OA No. 882 of 1998, and has filed an application under Sections 28(2) and 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 before the Recovery Officer in DCP No. 2537. By the said application, the petitioner seeks that the property owned by him is not liable to be s...
State by Police Sub-Inspector, Mangalore Vs. Jagadish Alias Jagga Alia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. Accused 2 is reported to be dead on 12-4-2012. Certificate issued by Mysore City Corporation is on record. Therefore, appeal against accused 2 has abated. Consequently, the appeal is heard only against respondent 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th July, 2011 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Court, Mangalore in S.C. No. 118 of 2008 is appealed against by the State. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted accused 1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused 1 and 2 entered the house of P.W.2 when he was alone in his house; assaulted him with knife (M.O. 3), consequent upon which, P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries; P.W.3 raised hue and cry; after hearing, such cries, P.W.1 being wife of P.W.2, who had gone to neighbouring house for attending the pooja, rushed to the scene of offence and saw both...
Varalakshmi and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated:20/03/2012, passed in MVC No.6147/2010, on the file of the Chief Judge and Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th March 2012, passed in MVC No.6147/2010, by the Chief Judge and Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (for short, Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 26,45,144/- awarded in favour of the claimants, after deducting 60% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, as against their claim for Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, is inadequate and that the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal at 60% on the part of the deceased driver of the Car is on the high...
Sandya Vs. The State by the Peenya Police Station, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. Case came to be registered in Crime No.596 of 2013 by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(b), 364(A), 344, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused. This petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet and the charge that is levelled against accused No. 7 is that the accused 1 to 6 have wrongfully confined the deceased victim for ten days in the house of this accused. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that except this allegation, there are no overt-acts attributable against this petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is a lady and she has got right for consideration of her case for anticipatory bail. In support of his submission the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala Wife of Prem Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2015 Cr.L.J., 2678 wherein it is held ...
Rama and Another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India by its Manage ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated: 07/04/2012, passed by the First Respondent, the copy of which has been produced herewith at Annexures-A and B and also the orders dated: 16/05/2012 passed by the Second Respondent, the copies of which have been produced herewith and marked as Annexures “ C and D, etc.,) 1. These petitions are filed before this court seeking the relief of a writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the 1st respondent and also the orders dated 16.05.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent, and for consequential direction to the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the post of Assistant and to pay all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioners by regularizing their services by considering the representations dated 10.05.2012 of the petitioners and any such other reliefs which the court deems fit in the circumstances o...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Hm Exports
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.191/2009 BETWEEN1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2(3), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV. & SRI G.KAMALADHAR, ADV.,) AND M/S.H.M.EXPORTS GENEVA HOUSE NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 070. (BY SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI S.PARTHASARTHY) ...RESPONDENT2THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED3004.2008 PASSED IN IT(SS)A.NO.26/BANG/2007, FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD14.1991 TO2905.2001, PRAYING TO I.FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN IT(SS)A.NO.26/BANG/2007, DATED3004.2008 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CON...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »