Karnataka Court September 2015 Judgments
A.C. Kanthamma Vs. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/S 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 22.9.2010 passed in MVC. No. 4495/2009 on the file of VI Addl. Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, dismissing the claim petition as not maintainable.) 1. Claimant in MVC.No. 4495/2009 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru, has come up in this appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 22.9.2010 is dismissing the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of her son in an unfortunate road traffic accident dated 25.12.2008. This appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 628 days. Hence, IA.I/2013 is filed seeking condonation of said delay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant on IA.I/2013 and perused the affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the same it is seen that the reason assigned for delay is that appellant was not conversant with the facts of the case; she has filed aforesaid claim proceedings seeking compensation for the death of her son; she went to h...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha @ Ranjitha Vs. Girishachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and decree dated: 13.08.2010 passed in M.C.No.5/2010 on the file of the judge, Family Court Davanagere, allowing the application filed u/s 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, for Divorce.) 1. Appellant - wife is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 13.8.2010 in M.C.No.5/2010 on the file of Family Court, Davanagere, allowing respondent's petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) and dissolving her marriage. 2. Brief facts: Respondent - husband presented the instant petition before the Family Court, contending inter alia that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 28.3.2004. The couple were blessed with a male child who was named Malatheshwarachar. After child's birth, attitude of appellant towards the respondent and his family changed. She started picking up quarrels on trivial issues and demanding for a separate house. She was compell...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Kirana Merchant, Gunj Bhalki, represented by Proprietor MD. Niz ...
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the Nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or Direction, directing the respondents, quashing tender for supply of Food Materials for Pre-metric and Post Metric Hostels/Ashrama Schools, coming under Social Welfare/ Backward Classes/ Tribal Welfare Departments for Bidar division only vide tender reference No. DSWOB/ACCT./CR-19/Food Tender/2015-16 dated 08.07.2015 in the interest of justice vide Annexure-D.) H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral): 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the tender notification dated 08.07.2015 bearing Ref. No. dswob/acct./cr-19/food tender/2015-16. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned tender notification is contrary to Rule 17(1)(b) of the Karnataka Transparency in Pu...
Tag this Judgment!Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Authority for Clarification and Adva ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under S.66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the revision order dated 21.4.2012 in AR CLR 23/2011-12 before the respondent authority.) 1. Appellant is the manufacturer of a product Yakultwhich, according to the appellant, is akin to lassiwhich is a milk product. Hence it is claimed that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Entry 19 of the First Schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (KVAT At for short). Appellant approached the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulingsconstituted under Section 60 of the KVAT Act seeking clarification as to the rate of tax which would be chargeable on the said product. By the impugned order dated 21.4.2012, the Authority has held that the product in question would be chargeable to tax under Section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the KVAT Act, at the rate of 14%. Challenging the said order of the Authority, this appeal has been filed. 2. We have heard Sri Shivadas, learned counsel for appellant as w...
Tag this Judgment!Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., rep. by Deputy General Manager V ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayers: This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to call for the records and after examining the same set aside the orders passed in Misc. Pet. Nos. 60/08 dated 20.10.2010 on the file of Principal Dist. Judge Dharwad. This CRP is filed u/s. 115 of CPC, against the order dated 20.10.2010 in Misc. Case No. 53/2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dharwad, partly allowing the petition filed u/sec. 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act. This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to set aside the orders passed in Misc. Pet. Nos. 62/08 dated 20.10.2010 on the file of the Principal Dist. Judge, Dharwad and pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including the cost of this petition in the interest of justice and equity. This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to set aside the orders passed in Misc. Pet. Nos. 57/08 dated 20.10.2010 on the file of the Principal Dist. Judge, Dharwad and pass an...
Tag this Judgment!Leharchand and Others Vs. Gulabchand and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayers: This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, partly decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession. This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, partly decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession. This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, partly decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession. This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. N...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Anantha Vs. M.K. Manjunatha and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
(Prayer: This M.F.A is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 18.08.2012 passed in MVC No. 328/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Channayapatna, Awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,09,100/- with interest @ 6% P.A from the date of petition till the date of deposit.) 1. The first respondent in MVC No. 328/2011 on the file of MACT, Channarayapatna has come up in this appeal challenging the finding of the tribunal in fastening liability to pay compensation on it pursuant to judgment dated 18.08.2012. In this appeal while challenging the judgment the appellant has also filed an application seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The appeal and application are taken up for consideration. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: In the proceedings in MVC No. 328/2011 which is initiated by the first respondent M.K. Manjunatha S/o Kodilingappa claiming that on 1.02.2010 at about 8.45 p.m. while he was walking on the...
Tag this Judgment!Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Devendrappa S/O Channabasapp ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE30T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA CIVIL REVISION PETTION No.1055 OF2011[I.O.]. C/w. CIVIL REVISION PETTION Nos.1049, 1057, 1052, 1009, 1058, 1051, 1050, 1056 & 1054 OF2011[I.O.]. C.R.P. NO.1055/2011: BETWEEN POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAMMIGATTI, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. REP. BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADV.) AND DEVENDRAPPA S/O.CHANNABASAPPA BELAKINDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAMPUR VILLAGE, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD. (BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AMICUS CURIAE, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED) ... RESPONDENT :2. : THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION115OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN MISC. PET. NOS. 60/08 DATED2010.2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DIST. JUDGE DHARWAD. C.R.P. NO.1049/2011: BETWEEN POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAMMIGATTI, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. REP. BY...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthamma a C Vs. The Branch Manager
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF SEPTEMBER2015BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA M.F.A.NO.11445/2012 (MV) BETWEEN: Kanthamma A.C, w/o Gangadharappa, aged 54 years, No.503, 1st A Main, Talakaveri Layout, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru. 560092 (by Smt.Ambika, Adv., for Sri.Mohd.Sheriff) AND:1. Appellant The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Ground floor, No.31, TBR towers, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Adjacent to Jain College, Bengaluru Stock Exchange, Bengaluru 2. Gangadharappa E, Major, S/o Malige Eshwarappa, No.503, 1st A Main, Tala Kaveri Nagar, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru 92.2. (by Sri.O.Mahesh, Advocate for R1, Notice to R2 is dis.with v/o documents.13.8.2015) Respondents - 2 - and award dated 22.9.2010 This MFA is filed u/S1731) of MV Act against the judgment in MVC.No.4495/2009 on the file of VI Addl.Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, dismissing the claim petition as not maintainable. Court delivered...
Tag this Judgment!Yakult Danone India Private Ltd Vs. Authority for Clarification and Ad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015 Present THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN & THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR Sales Tax Appeal 119 / 2012 Between Appellant Yakult Danone India Pvt LTd # 102, Gangadhar Chetty Road Bangalore 42 By Mr Ejji Amano General Manager Sales & Marketing (By Sri Shivdas, Adv.) And Authority for Clarification & Advance Rulings Department of Commercial Taxes Commercial Taxes Buildings Gandhinagar, Bangalore 9 (By Sri K M Shivayogiswamy, AGA Appeal is filed under S.66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the revision order dated 21.4.2012 in AR CLR232011-12 before the respondent authority. J., delivered the following: Appeal coming on for hearing this day, Vineet Saran Respondent 2 JUDGMENT Appellant is the manufacturer of a product Yakult which, according to the appellant, is akin to lassi which is a milk product. Hence it is claimed that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Entry ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »