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.
Loyalty Solutions and Research (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri K.P. Kumar appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing are considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The facts are as follows: It is stated that the petitioner manages consumer loyalty programs for its partner organizations, whereby the customers of its partners become entitled to loyalty points on purchase of certain goods or services, which can be redeemed towards future purchases. The loyalty program is managed by the petitioner at an agreed price with its partners. For the assessment year 2008-09, the gross amount received from the partners towards the redemption of the loyalty points was accounted upfront as income and was offered to tax and the cost of redemption of points was claimed as a deduction in computing the said income. Insofar as the unredeemed l...
H.A. Devegowda Vs. H.T. Venkategowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
(This Crl.RP., is filed u/s. 397 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 17.10.2014 in Crl.A.No.145/2013 on the file of the Prl. Dist. and S.J., Hassan whereby the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution and the order dated 4.7.2013 in C.C.No.217/2006 on the file of the II Addl. C.J., and JMFC, Hassan came to be confirmed, consequently, directly the Court below to pass the judgment on merits and allow the Revision Petition.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent is duly served and absent. 2. Present petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. since appeal in Cri.A.No. 145/2013 was dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. It need not be reiterated that neither a criminal revision petition nor a criminal appeal should be dismissed for default and they will have to be disposed of on merits. Reliance is placed upon to a decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in BANI SINGH and OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P. (AIR 1996 SC 2439) to this effect. The Code of Criminal Procedure e...
Ravikumar Vs. Soubhagyalaxmi @ Laxmi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
1. The husband filed the above writ petition against the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubli, on the interim application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( the Act , for short), granting an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent-wife. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemanised on 30.05.2013 at Kundagol as per the Hindu customs. Thereafter, during the month of April, 2015, the respondent filed a Criminal Misc. Case No.39/2015 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Kundagol for maintenance, alleging that the present petitioner demanding dowry at the instance of his mother and refused to maintain the respondent-wife. In the said case, the learned JMFC, Kundagol has granted a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a matrimonial case in M.C.No.60/2015, under the provi...
Rangaswamaiah Vs. H.A. Shaikh Hussain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
1. Though the matter is listed in orders list, with the consent both sides it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is filed requesting the Court to set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 31-7-2015 passed on the amendment application in O.S. No.1046 of 2008. 3. Petitioner herein who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed the amendment application to amend the pleadings in the plaint and also the relief column, which was opposed by the respondent/defendant by filing objection statement. After considering the merits of the application, the Trial Court has rejected the amendment application. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Herd the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and also the learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff during the course of his arguments submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2008 seeking specific performance of the agreement of ...
Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another Vs. B.J.N. Hotels Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
S. Sujatha J. 1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act" for short) challenging the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "A" (the 'Tribunal" for short) for the assessment yeas 2001-02 to 2005-06. 2. Facts in brief are : The assessee is engaged in the business of running a hotel. On December 17, 2004, a search was conducted by the Departmental authorities under section 132 of the Act. Proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated by issuing the required notice, requesting the assessee to file a return of income for the relevant assessment years. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring loss. Proceedings by order dated July 31, 2006, initiated under section 142(2A) of the Act, appointing a special auditor came to be dropped as no opportunity was provided to the assessee. Subsequently, notice was issued on November 30, 2006 under section 142(2A) of the Act, proposing to sen...
Basamma Vs. The State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secretary and Others
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari, quashing Annexure-D, viz., the notification dated 15.06.2015 bearing Ref.No.Kra:Chunavane:CR:38:2015-16, in so far as it pertains to the election of the President to the respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat which is found at Sl.No.9 in the said notification, etc.) 1. Petitioner on being elected as a member of the fourth respondent Gram Panchayat on 17.02.2013, successfully contested the election to the office of President of the said Gram Panchayat, on 07.06.2013. The State Government amended Section 46 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short Act ) by Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 which received assent of the Governor on 29.04.2015, brought into force at once by which the words thirty months was substituted by the words five years . Petitioner claiming to be entitled to the extended tenure of the offi...
Shri. Ravikumar S/O Vasanthkumar Kattimani Vs. Smt. Soubhagyalaxmi @ L ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE9h DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.114192/2015 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O VASANTHKUMAR KATTIMANI AGE:32. YEARS, OCC:T.V. SERVICING R/O:RAMALINGESHWARA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD (BY SRI.RAVI S. MATTUR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND: SMT. SOUBHAGYALAXMI @ LAXMI W/O RAVIKUMAR KATTIMANI AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK C/O:SHRI.RAMANNA S/O JATEPPA PATHROTI, NEAR BRAHMALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, PALEDAR ONI, KUNDAGOL TQ:KUNDAGOL, DIST:DHARWAD ... RESPONDENT --- :2. : THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, ON I.A. IN M.C. NO.60/2015 DATED:07/09/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PASS ANY ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS FOR PRELIMINARHY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: PETITION COMING ON ORDER Th...
H a Devegowda Vs. H T Venkategowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
- 1 - R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE9H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.997/2014 Petitioner BETWEEN: H.A. Devegowda S/o Patel Annegowda Sri. Veerabhadra High School Near Ramakrishna Vidyalaya Vidyanagar Hassan-573 201. (By Smt. Kavitha H.C, Advocate) AND: H.T. Venkategowda S/o Late Thimmegowda Ranganatha Engineering Works Ranganatha Complex, Gonikoppal Main Road, Vidyanagar Hassan-573 201. (Respondent served) This Crl.RP., is filed u/S397of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 17.10.2014 in Crl.A.No.145/2013 on the file of the Prl. Dist. And S.J., Hassan whereby the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution and the order dated 4.7.2013 in C.C.No.217/2006 on the file of the II Addl. C.J., and JMFC, Hassan came to be confirmed, consequently, Respondent - 2 - directly the Court below to pass the judgment on merits and allow the Revision Petition. made the following: This Crl.RP comin...
Ramesh Bhimagouda Patil Vs. State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secre ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. The petitioner/appellant, assailing the correctness of the order dated 13/09/2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 15851/2012 by the learned Single Judge has presented this appeal. 2. The petition filed by the petitioner/appellant questioning the correctness of the endorsement dated 16.3.2012 issued by the respondent No.4 and also seeking direction to the respondents to issue a licence in his favour for Retail vend of Beer as contemplated under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Retail vend of Beer) for the Excise year 2011-2012 has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge, with liberty to the petitioner/appellant to renew his request for the said licence after the embargo is lifted by the State. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has presented this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. During the pendency of this appeal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has filed I.A.No.2/2015 for pro...
H.J. Siwani and Another Vs. Dr. R.P. Shankar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(MFA filed U/O 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC against the order dated 05.02.2015 dismissing I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No.994/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.) Oral: Order regarding maintainability of a common appeal presented under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against a common order passed on several interlocutory applications in a suit or in a Regular Appeal: 1. Registry has raised an objection as to maintainability of this common appeal on the ground that a single appeal presented against a common order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the trial court in exercise of the power under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.994/2012 is not maintainable. According to the Registry, separate appeals will have to be presented against the order relating to each of the interlocutory applications though the order is common. 2. In my opinion, a common appeal presented under Order XLIII Rule l(r) of CPC...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »