Karnataka Court February 2016 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.
State by Lokayuktha Police, Mysore Vs. Gurumallappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: This Crl.A. is filed under S.378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Special Case No.69/1997, acquitting the respondent/ accused for the offence punishable under Ss.7, 13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.) 1. Based on a complaint (Ex.P-1) dated 15.02.1994 submitted by M.N. Shivananjaiah alleging that the respondent demanded Rs.500/- for transfer of katha of a site, FIR (Ex.P-2) in Crime No.3/1994 was registered by the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). A pre-trap panchanama (Ex.P-4) was drawn. CW.53 applied and obtained search warrant and conducted the search panchanama (Ex.P-5). The intended trap did not materialise. Permission vide Ex.P-8, to investigate and add Section 13(i)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Act was obtained on 16....
M/S Pratham Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF FEBRUARY2016BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.24493 AND4125041272 OF2015BETWEEN: (T-KST) M/s.Pratham Motors Private Limited, Survey No.16, Outer Ring Road, (Sarjapur-Marathahalli), Bellandur, Bengaluru 560 037, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Sri. Samar Vikram Bhasin, Aged about 41 years, Son of Sri. Shivy Bhasin. (By Shri Rabinathan .G, Advocate) AND:1. State of Karnataka, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Government of Karnataka, PETITIONER2 3.4. 2 Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru 560 001. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru 560 009. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Gulbarga, Camp at office of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4, Shantinagar, Bengaluru 560 027. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-4.6, DVO-4, Room No.204, 2nd Floor, Van...
Shri Prem Chand Grag Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF FEBRUARY2016BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8509/2015 BETWEEN SHRI PREM CHAND GRAG AGED ABOUT51YEARS, SON OF SHRI HARNARAIN AGGARWAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S SHRI LAL MAHAL LIMITED B-16, BHAGAWAN DAS NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110026 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DILJITH SINGH AHLUWALIA, ADV. FOR SRI RAJENDRA S) AND CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPATION BUREAU, BANGALORE, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560032 REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL SP, CBI:BS&FC:BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SR. ADV. FOR M/S. JADHAV ASSOCIATES) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PER. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN (SPL.CC.NO.54/2014) RC.NO.17(A)/2012 OF CBI, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S120B R/W409 420 OF IPC AND SEC.13(2) R/W131)(C)& (D) OF PC ACT. 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri Dil...
Sikander @ Gouruba Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.267/2010 BETWEEN: Sikander @ Gouruba, S/o. Ameer Khan, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.131, 2nd Main, 5th Cross, Valmikinagar, Mysore Road, Bangalore. (By Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, Adv.) AND: State of Karnataka, By Chamarajpet Police, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bangalore. ...APPELLANT (By Sri B. Visweswaraiah, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT This Crl.A. is filed under S.374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.12.2009/02.01.2010 passed in S.C.No.62/2007 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-XIV, Bangalore City, convicting the offence punishable under S.306 of IPC. the appellant/ accused for 2 This Crl.A. coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Sessions Judge FTC XIV, Benga...
State of Karnataka Vs. Dattaraj and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. Dattaraj the respondent-accused no. 1, married Savita (since deceased), on 7.6.2002. About three months before the marriage, at the asking of Dattaraj, it was agreed to give Rs.21,000/- in cash and 3 tolas of gold. Accordingly, the family of Savita complied with the aforesaid commitment, at the time of marriage. After their marriage, Savita started to live in her matrimonial house along with Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. 1). Soon after his marriage, Dattaraj went to Dubai, leaving Savita at the matrimonial house. During his absence, she went to her parents house. Dattaraj contacted Savita, and had a telephonic conversation with her, while she was at her parents house. He enquired from her, with whose permission she had gone to her maternal house. He also rebuked her for having left the matrimonial house, without his permission. 2. While Savita was in her maternal house, Dattaraj required her to get Rs.20,000/- in cash from her parents, as his brother need...
Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
Jayant Patel, J. 1. In all appeals, more than one questions are raised but learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pressed only one question in all appeals which reads as under : "1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the assessing authority not to exclude the expenses incurred in foreign currency from export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act in the case of the assessee against the provisions of the Act and when the development of and creation of software program's outside India in accordance with the requirements of the clients abroad, interacting and studying the need of the clients and advising them accordingly involves rendering of technical services outside India ?" 2. The second question/other questions are not pressed. 3. We have heard Mr. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in all the appeals and Mr. K. K. Chaithanya has appeared for the assessee...
Papanna Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The case in brief is, during the relevant period, when the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant Director of Fisheries at Chitradurga, Articles of charges were served upon him alleging misconduct on five counts. In spite of giving opportunity by the Enquiry Officer, he has not contested the said proceedings and ultimately the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.12.1998. Though the second show-cause notice was issued, the petitioner has not submitted his statement of objections. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of reversion for a period of three years and I has also held that the Petitioner is not entitled for any promotion for a period of three years. It is also stated in the said order that he is not entitled for yearly increments during the punishment period i.e., for a period of three years. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal'). The Tr...
T.V. Rajendra Babu Vs. The Chief Law Officer Appellate Authority, KSRT ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dt: 21.3.2011 passed by R-2 vide Annx-G to the Writ Petition; quash the impugned order dt. 22.10.2011/31.10.2011 passed by R-1 Vide Annx-J to the writ petition and etc.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 21.03.2011 and 22.10.2011 impugned at Annexures-G and J to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking restoration of the increment of the petitioner and to grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the respondent-Corporation. On the charge that the petitioner was negligent and had caused delay in implementation of the Court order, which had resulted in the beneficiary of the said order initiating the contempt proceedings against the highly placed officials of the respondent-Corporation, the action was initiated and on holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charge, th...
S. Shivaprasad Vs. The Controller and Auditor General of India, New De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The respondents have issued a notification in Employment News dated 16/22.10.2010 for Selection and Appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). The respondents have also prescribed the qualification of 10th Class Pass and work experience, if any. The petitioner has also applied for the above 'MTS' post and as he was not selected, has challenged the selection process, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short, 'CAT'). 2. Earlier he filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short, 'CAT'), in O.A. 222/2011. The said application was allowed on 17.01.2012 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the applicants' request. Having reconsidered the same, the respondents have once again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 07.01.2014 on the ground that the marks secured by him in the Selection Process is less than the marks secured by the last candidate in the Se...
Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another Vs. C. Gopalaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The appellant-Revenue has preferred the appeal on the following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54F just because the assessee has reinvested entire capital gains by making payment in full to the builder and builder has not handed over the possession within the time limit prescribed under section 54F notwithstanding the fact that section being treated as beneficial provision, the exemption claimed by the assessee is disallowed since the initial agreement of construction itself spoke completion time being December 31, 2011 against available time of construction by August 1, 2010 and assessee had failed to satisfy the specific condition to get exemption" ? Tax effect 1.61 crore." 2. We have heard Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Revenue. As appears from the record that the assessee a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »