Karnataka Court November 2016 Judgments
sri.nooralam S/O Maheboobsab Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE22d DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 B E F O R E THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.205710/2016 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.NOORALAM S/O MAHEBOOBSAB BAGALKOT AGED ABOUT27YEARS, R/O NETAJI GALLI, MEDDEBIHAL DIST:VIJAYAPUR (BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV.) PETITIONER AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR REP. BY ITS SECRETARY2REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-1 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER2 UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT ALAMATTI TQ: B.BAGEWADI DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586101 RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO MODIFY THE AWARD DATED2802.2016 IN No.SAM / LAQ: SR-35/12-13 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ANENXURE 'G', BY PASSING THE ADDITIONAL AWARD IN RESPECT OF WELL AND40LEMON TREES THAT WERE MERGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION O...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Mahesh Kumar and Others Vs. State by CBI ACB
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant/accused no.1 praying to set aside the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore and Spl.C.C.No.76/2006- convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 120(b) read with 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and etc;) 1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri C.V.Nagesh, appearing for the Counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.1164/2010 and Shri Ganesh Shenoy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.1163/2010 and Shri Kiran S Javali, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in the other connected appeals. 2. These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as the appellants have challenged the very same judgment. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Bank Ltd. rep. by its Chief Manager and Authorised Officer V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No 33276 of 2013 dated 23-11-2015.) ORDER ON IA-I OF 2016 1. There is a delay of 239 days in preferring this appeal. After hearing Mr Y V Parthasarathy, learned advocate appearing in support of the application for condonation of delay, Mr M Srikanth, learned advocate appearing for the respondent and considering the averments contained in the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay stands allowed. We make no order as to costs. With the consent of the parties, the writ appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing. JUDGMENT IN THE WRIT APPEAL 2. The respondent-writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayarama and Others Vs. Nagappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: This RFA is filed under Sec.96 (1) of the CPC, 1908. Against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.2005/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-1 Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession and mense profits.) 1. Learned Counsel for the appellants has filed a memo seeking deletion of respondent Nos.8 to 12 as the appellants are not seeking any relief against them. 2. Memo is accepted. Appellants are permitted to delete respondent Nos.8 to 12. Since respondent No.1 is no more, respondent Nos.2 to 6 are treated as his LRs. 3. Appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 7 have filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC reporting settlement of the matter. Appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are present before the Court and are identified by their respective learned Counsel. The terms of the compromise memo are as under: The LRs of the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 7 in the above app...
Tag this Judgment!H G Hiremani Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.16822/2008 (L-RES) R ... PETITIONER BETWEEN: H G HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT51YEARS, S/O GURAPPA,EARLIER WORKING AS CLERK, CANARA BANK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.75, MADIVALA EXTENSION BANGALORE560068. (BY SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: CANARA BANK, A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT,1970 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STAFF SECTION (WORKMAN) CIRCLE OFFICE, BANGALORE-560001. (BY SRI P. UDAYA SHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED223.2001 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT -CUM-LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE IN CASE C.R.No.11/93 (UNDER ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF INDUSTRIAL2CERTITORARI AND DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT/ CANAR...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs. Sri. M. Suresh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016 PRESENT: R THE HONBLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE BUDIHAL R B Writ Appeal No 3394 of 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA BANK LTD. ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH No.105, 3RD FLOOR KASTURBA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER MR DATHATHREYA M N ... APPELLANT [Sri Y V Parthasarathy, Advocate) SRI M SURESH S/O MADHAVA SHENOY AGED ABOUT53YEARS R/AT1T CROSS LAKKAMMA LAYOUT HORAMAVU AGARA BENGALURU - 560 043 RESPONDENT [Sri M Srikanth, Advocate]. AND:2. THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S4OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO33276OF2013DATED2311-2015. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA-I OF2016There is a delay of 239 days in preferring this appeal. After hearing Mr Y V Parthasarathy, learned advocate ...
Tag this Judgment!K C Mahesh Kumar Vs. State by Cbi Acb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF NOVEMBER2016BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1111 OF2010CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1107 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1108 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1109 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1110 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1112 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1113 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1114 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1115 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1116 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1117 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1118 OF20102 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1119 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1120 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1121 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1122 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1123 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1124 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1125 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1163 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1164 OF2010IN CRL.A.No.1111/2010 BETWEEN: K.C.Mahesh Kumar, Son of Shri K.P.Chandrashekhar, Aged 42 years, Resident of Kanathur Village and Post, Alur Taluk, Hassan. (By Shri Kiran S.Javali and Shri Chandrashekara K., Advocates) AND: ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Manjunatha Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C., Praying to Set aside the impugned Judgments of conviction and sentence passed against this Petitioner accused by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) and Jmfc, Doddaballapur in C.C.No.160/2008 Dated 8.5.2009 and also the Judgment dated 24.12.2009 Passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast track Court-Ii, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore In Crl.A.No.34/2009.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties. 2. The respondent/Police charge sheeted the revision petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 3. The allegation was that the petitioner/accused, a married person, suppressing the said fact advertised through a daily newspaper for a prospective bride. Thus he came in contact with CW-1/Smt.Bhagyamma, the mother of CW-2/Roopashree. He persuaded Bhagyamma to sell her site and entered into an agreement of sale with CW-4/Smt.Renukamma on 11.6.2007. He received the advance amo...
Tag this Judgment!B. Harisha and Others Vs. Visveshwaraiah, Represented by the Registrar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the circular dated 6.4.2016 issued by the r-1 Vide Annex-F as the same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India; direct the R-1 to permit the petitioners to appear for examination in relation to the respective backlog subjects to be held during May/June/July 2016 and further direct the respondents to declare the results of said examinations and etc.,) 1. All the petitioners who have been admitted to B.E. Course in the various colleges of Engineering in the year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 are before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the Circular bearing No.VTU/Aca/Gen/2016-17/136 dated 06.04.2016 issued by the first respondent and also for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioners to appear for examinations in relation to the respective backlog subjects to be held during May/June/Ju...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. The Nagarbail Salt-Owne ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Nov-19-2016
This ITA Is Filed U/S.260 A of the Income-Tax Act,1961, Praying to formulate the Substantial Question of Law as stated and allow the Appeal and set aside the Orders Passed by the INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI, in ITA NO.252/PNJ/2014. Dtd: 23.01.2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and confirm the Order Passed by the INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, Santeri Krujapa Building, Habbuwada Karwar. P.S. Dinesh Kumar J. 1. Revenue, aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji ( ITAT for short) in ITA No.252/PNJ/2014 dated 23.1.2015 for the assessment year 2006-07 has presented this appeal raising certain questions of law. This Court after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and Counsel for the respondent assessee vide order dated 2.11.2016 framed following question of law: Whether the respondent Society assessed to tax on its income as person as defined under Section 2(31) of Income Tax Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »