Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order passed in the writ Petition No.3434/2009(L-TER) Dated 11.03.2010.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.3434/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order, has rejected the petition. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that as per the respondent-workman, he was appointed as Literate Assistant on daily wage basis in the month of July 1984. As per the appellants, on 1.8.1985, the respondent-workman was not continued further in his employment. The dispute was raised before the Competent Authority and ultimately the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference No.102/1994. The Labour Court ultimately passed the Award on 22.11.2006, directing for reinstatement with same status and with the further clarification that the order of reinstat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Crl.A. is filed under S.454 r/w 482 Cr.P.C., praying to 1) modify/set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2012 by the Hon'ble FTC-II, at Mysore in S.C.No.130/2011 is no far as ordering for confiscation of the M.O.No.14 -SBBL, Gun, M.O.15 SBBL Gun, M.O.16 - SBBL Gun, M.O.17 -Gun, M.O.18 -Gun and M.O. 26 to the state thereby ordering to release them in favour of the appellants respectively; 2) set aside the consequential order dated 20.05.2014 rejecting the claim of the appellants seeking release of the MO IN S.C.No.130/2011 Is no far as ordering for confiscation of the M.O.NO.14 SBBL, Gun, M.O.15, SBBL Gun, M.O.16, SBBL Gun, M.O.17, Gun, M.O.18 gun and M.O. 26.) 1. The appellants along with the others stood trial in S.C.No.130/2011, on the file of the Sessions Court at Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 304 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 30 of Arms Act. After holding trial, by a judgment dated 31.08.2012, the Presiding Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23d DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8267/2015 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YAGATI POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-577 140. (By Sri: B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND NAGARAJA S/O ANANDAPPA, CHIKKABASURU VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548. (By Sri: PRAKASH M H, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT 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 DATED1006.2015 PASSED IN SPL.C(PCSOA) No.17/2015 BY THE I JUDGE, SESSIONS ADDL. AND SPL. 2 CHICKKAMAGALURU, GRANTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS363114,366A, 376 R/W34OF 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. BAIL TO THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON1702.2016, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF FEBRUARY2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.305 OF2015Between 1.Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-4, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -11 (5) Bangalore. (By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) And Sri. Rajeev Chandrashekar, No.375, III block 13th Main, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034 ... Appellants 2 PAN No.ABHPC1951 (By Sri S Parthasarathi, Advocate) ... Respondent The advocate for the appellant has filed the above ITA / Income Tax Appeal Under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated:27/02/2015 passed in ITA No.1440/Bang/2013, for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 praying to decide the foregoing question of law and / or such other questions of law as may be formulated by the Hon'ble Court as deemed fit, set aside the appellant order dated:27/02/2015 passed by the ITAT, 'A' Bench, Bangalore, in ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23d DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3973/2015 BETWEEN: STATE BY ALUR POLICE573213 (By Sri: K.NAGESHWARAPA, HCGP) AND KUMARA S/O LORRY VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT51YEARS R/O KUMBARAHALLI KOPPALU VILLAGE, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT573213 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (By Sri: B LETHIF, ADV.) 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 ALLOW THE PETITION AND CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL DATED1612.2014 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1451 OF2014ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.S.J.AT HASSAN IN CR.NO.273/2014 OF2ALUR P.S., HASSAN WHICH REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S506376 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON1002.2016, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DAY, A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDERS OF THIS ORDER ON THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION4392), C...
Tag this Judgment!