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.
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Yog ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
B. Manohar, J. 1. These Appeals and Cross-Objection are filed by the United India Insurance Company as well as the Claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 3.4.2009 made in WCA Nos.229 and 230 of 2001 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-11, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC' for short). 2. MFA No.31711/2009 and MFA No.31712/2009 are filed by the United India Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the judgment and Order passed by the WCC fastening the liability on them to compensate the Claimants whereas the MFA Cross-Objection No. 1005/2010 is filed by the Claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of Compensation. 3. Since the common judgment and Order passed by the WCC has been challenged in these Appeals and Cross-Objections, both the Appeals and 1 Cross-Objection are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Claimants are the sons of deceased Lakshmi Bai and brother of deceased Akk...
Patil Dental College and Hospital Naubad and Others Vs. State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the respondents which ultimately resulted in not approving the admission of the petitioner 2 to 26 for the studies of BDS Course for the academic year 2013-14.) 1. There is no dispute that 40 seats in the stream of dental in the first petitioner educational institution were not filled up by COMED-K, in other words, seats meant to be filled up by the management. Those seats, were filled up by admitting 25 students. Petitioner Nos.2 to 26 eligible for admission to the said course and having done so the 1st petitioner-college made a representation to the third respondent-University for approval of the admissions which when not responded, has resulted in filing W.P.Nos.27974/2014 and connected matters, when a Division Bench by order dated 18.11.2014, read down Annexure-A therein as a show cause notice to which the petitioner college was permitted to filed de...
Kanchana L. Rao Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
L. Narayanaswamy, J. 1. The Lokayuktha sought to prosecute husband of the petitioner under Section 13(l)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case came to be registered in Crime No.54/2012. The check period was taken as 29.8.1992 to 22.6.2012. 2. In the said proceedings, the Lokayuktha police recorded statement of wife and thereafter she is made as Accused No. 2 on the ground that she has committed an offence punishable under Sections 109, 177, 468, 465 and 471, IPC. On the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the Lokayuktha Police the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against both husband as well as the wife. 3. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner who is wife of Accused No. 1 has presented the present petition seeking to allow revision petition and to set aside the order dated 16.7.2015 in Spl. C C No. 327/2015 on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil Sessions Judge/Special Judge under PC Act, Bengalore Urban District, Ban...
Farm Superintendent, Central Cattle Breeding Farm and Another Vs. Sidd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The order dated 19th January 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short), Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application No. 109/2010 is called in question in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay House Rent Allowance ('HRA' for short) in favour of the respondent. 2. The respondent is a driver working under the petitioners. He was transferred from Central Poultry Development Organisation ('CPDO' for short) to Central Cattle Breeding Farm ('CCBF' for short), Hesaraghatta on 16.11.2004 and he was allotted official residential quarters at CCBF on 20.11.2004. Though the respondent was transferred from CPDO on 16.11.2004. he vacated the quarters at CPDO only on 28.9.2007. Thereafter the petitioners directed the respondent to occupy the quarters allotted to him in CCBF at Hesaraghatta on 16.10.2007. The respondent however did not occupy the official quarters allotted to him in CC...
Bangalore Urban and Rural District Co-Operative Milk Producers Societi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
S. Sujatha, J. 1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Bangalore ("Tribunal" for short), raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) The appellant trust having object for advancement of general public utility which is evident from the object clause of the trust, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the trust was only for the benefit of milk producers' societies and more of mutual concern and not a charitable entity by upholding the denial of registration under section 12A and recognition under section 80G of the Act ? (ii) Assuming that the appellant was constituted for the benefit of milk producers societies, can it be said to be a mutual concern and not charitable as held by the Tribunal without appreciating the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 704 (SC) ? (iii) Whether the mere fact that the trust having not carried on...
Roshni Mathan Pereira Vs. Agnes Flora Mathan and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the Order passed in Writ Petition No. 15906/2013 dated 06/03/2014.) 1. The writ appeal is barred by limitation. This writ appeal is against the judgment and order dated March 6, 2014, passed by the Hon ble Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 15906 of 2013. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated January 23, 2013, passed on an application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. A case was registered in the Court of learned First Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru, as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 355 of 2012. 4. The aggrieved appellant approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal. 5. In view of t...
The Divisional Controller, Bangalore Vs. N.S. Malleshetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 15.09.2012 in Ref 27/10 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore vide Annexure-A.) 1. The petitioner corporation is before this Court assailing the award dated 15.09.2012 passed in Reference No.27/2010. The respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. On the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent from 01.06.1998 to 10.01.2000, he was dismissed from service by the order dated 06.02.2001. 2. The Labour Court, after taking note of the rival contentions has by its award directed reinstatement, however without any monetary benefits for the period while he was out of employment, but, had granted the continuity of service and the consequential benefits in notional terms for the purpose of calculating the retirement benefits. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved has assailed the said award dated 15.09.2012....
State of Karnataka Vs. Nagaraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Crl.P filed U/s.439 (2) Cr.P.C by the State for the petitioner praying that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to (1) set aside the order dated 10.06.2015 passed in Spl.C (PCSOA) No.17/2015 by the I Addl. Sessions and Spl. Judge, Chickkamagaluru, granting bail to the Respondent/Accused for the offence under Sections 363, 114, 366A, 376 R/W 34 of IPC and Sec.4, 6, 17 of POCSO Act and cancel the said Order of bail. Direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody.)ORDER ON THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (2), Cr.P.C. 1. The present petition is filed by the State requested by Yagati police station, Chikkamagalur District, requesting the court to cancel bail granted to the respondent-accused on 10.6.2015 in SPECIAL CASE (POCSO) NO.17/2015 by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikkamagalur. Respondent will be referred to as accused in view of his ranking shown in the case filed by Yagati police. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the applicat...
Lakshmaiah and Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur District ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur District vide Annexure-H and the order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chickballapur Sub-Division vide Annexure-G.) 1. Father of respondent No.3, Sri Narasappa, had made an application on 20.06.1959, claiming registration of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, under the provisions made in the Mysuru (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and the Rules made thereunder. Considering the said application, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, in Case No.69/1959-60 passed an order dated 10.03.1962 and granted occupancy rights over the land in question. The grantee - Narasappa and his family members transferred the land in question to one Sri K.M. Thammaiah, under registered sale deed dated 14.06.1964. Sri K.M. Thammaiah, in turn sold the...
Principle Commissioner of Income-tax 4 Vs. Rajeev Chandrashekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The learned Counsel for the appellants-Revenue has submitted the memo for re-framing of questions of law, to which we have permitted. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Tribunal in Dy. CIT v.Rajeev Chandrashekar [2015] 57 taxmann.com 89/68 SOT 312 (Bang.), whereby the Tribunal has not accepted the case of the Revenue and the appeal is dismissed. 3. We may record that the re-framed questions formulated by the appellants-Revenue are as under: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by assessing authority in respect of rental income of Kormangala Property No. 408 without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer had estimated the fair rent after causing enquiries as to the prevailing rent that similar property would fetch in the posh locality at Koramangala? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »