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.
Swaroopa Rani Vs. Rajendrareddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
(This MFA is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and decree dated 03/08/2012, passed in M.C.No. 2335/2011, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed u/s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.) N.K. Patil, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 3rd August 2012, passed in M.C. No.2335/2011, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed by respondent/husband u/S. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant and respondent on 26/04/2001. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent. The appellant and respondent are present before the Court and their presence is placed on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent, during the course of submission, submi...
Rupa Mahajan Vs. Satish Mahajan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
S. Sujatha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed by the 4th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No. 1933/2008, allowing the petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage. 2. The facts in brief are: - that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was sclemnized as per Hindu Rites on IS.01.1974 at Chennai. It transpires that after their marriage, the respondent and appellant lived at No.58, Cunningham Road, Bangalore happily for a period of 16 years upto 1990. Their marriage was consummated and the couple were blessed with twins (sons) named Gaurav and Vaibhav in the year 1980. It is stated that both the appellant and respondent jointly purchased a land situated at No.328, 5th Main, 1st Block, Koramangala in the year 1990 and after constructing a house on the said land, they shifted their residence to the newly built house in 1990 and were residing therein. When the relationship between the parties...
Spporthi Sadan Convent Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J 1. The appellant has called in question the order dated 7/1/2015 in ITA No.168/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji (ITAT for short), dismissing the appeal as having been barred by limitation. 2. Heard Sri. S. Parthasarathi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the appellant had filed an application under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for registration of trust. The said application had been rejected vide order dated 24/6/2011 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. This order was challenged before the ITAT. The said appeal was presented with the delay of 997 days. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record with regard to the delay in filing the appeal has recorded a finding which reads follows: "The learned AR though vehemently contended that it was under bona fide impr...
Chanabasappa S/O. Sangappa Chachadi Vs. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
:1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA R DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE17H DAY OF FEBRUARY2016BEFORE THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA M.S.A. NO.552/2012 (LAC) BETWEEN : CHANABASAPPA S/O SANGAPPA CHACHADI, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST. R/O: MUGABASAVA, TALUK BAILHONGALA. BELGAUM DISTRICT. (BY SRI: S.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, MLBC DIVISION NO.2, NAVILUTEERTH, SAUNDATTI.2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT, DHARWAD - III, OPP. HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: RAMESH N. MISALE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SMT. VEENA HEGDE, GOVT. PLEADER FOR R-2) ***** :2. : THIS M.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION542) OF THE L.A. ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE MARKET VALUE AT THE RATE OF RS.3,00,000/- PER ACRE ALONG WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT IN LAC APPEAL NO.130/2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, DATED0204.2012 AND LAC NO.193/2010 DATED2603.2011 P...
U.R. Bheemasena Vs. State of Karnataka, By High Grounds Police Station ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: This Crl.RP filed U/s.397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the L Addl. City Civil and S.J., Bangalore dated 17.11.2015 passed in Spl.C.C.No.540/2014 thereby dismissing the application filed by the petr. seeking discharge U/s 227 of Cr.P.C. and discharge the petr.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP. Perused the impugned order dated 17.11.2015passed by the learned judge dealing with special cases in Spl.C.C.540/14. 2. Charge sheet is filed against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 374, I.P.C. and Sections 23 and 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2006. The allegation against this petitioner is that he had engaged the services of children aged below 14 years from morning till evening and a case was registered on the basis of information given by a voluntary organization and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed ...
Prem Chand Grag Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corrupation B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: 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/s 120-B r/w 409, 420 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(C)and (D) of PC Act.) 1. Heard Sri Diljit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior counsel representing the CBI. 2. Petitioner is accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No. 54/2014. A case is registered by CBI, Bangalore on the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to the illegal extraction of iron ore in some parts of Bellary and transportation of the same to Belekeri Port and thereafter transporting the same to other countries through ships. On a petition filed by Samaja Parivarthan Samudaya in W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009, the Hon'ble Apex Court chose to direct the CBI to register a case in connection with the illegal extraction and transportation of lakhs of tons of iron ore from Bellary to various countr...
Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another Vs. Hewlett-Packard India Sales ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
S. Sujatha J. 1. This appeal is by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (the "Act" for short) against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "A", Bangalore relating to the assessment year 2007-08 by raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in quashing the order under section 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax without appreciating that the fonn 3CD report of the auditor had contended that the assessee has not considered Central Board of Direct Taxes's Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 : [1995] 215 ITR (St.) 12, in respect of section 194C pertaining to deduction of TDS on advertisement contract an Rs. 8,96,04,391 should be disallowed as an expenditure from the profit and loss account as per provision of section 40(a)(ia) and brought to tax ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in quashing the order under section 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax without appreciating th...
Sikander @ Gouruba Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: 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 appellant/ accused for the offence punishable under S.306 of IPC.) 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Sessions Judge FTC XIV, Bengaluru City, dated 31.12.2009/02.01.2010 passed in S.C. No.62/2007. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under S.306 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 6 months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs.4,000/- was ordered to be paid to PW-6/ Jabeen Taj i.e., mother of deceased and in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo further S.I. for a further period of 6 months. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case which are relevant to decide this appeal can be stated as follows: The appellant-accused and...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore Vs. Chaitanya Properties (P.) Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal by formulating the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reasons recorded by the assessing officer did not spell out that escapement of income was due to the assessee not fully and truly disclosing all material facts necessary for completion of assessment for the relevant assessment year without considering the fact that the assessing officer recorded that the assessee did not file any information regarding incidence of capital gains? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the initiation of reassessment has been merely on the basis of change of opinion and is not without appreciating that no opinion was formed in the original assessment on the issue and hence change of opinion does not arise?" 2. We have heard Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Mr. A. Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee. 3. We may record ...
M/s. Pratham Motors Private Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive Offic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the second time reassessment order dated 1.4.2014 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Audit_ 4-6, Bengaluru the Fourth respondent herein, under Section 39(2) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the tax periods April 2006 to March 2007 and April 2007 to March 2008 Annexure D and E and etc; Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner claims that it is a dealer in cars and is entitled to deduction of discounts allowed to customers in the sale price of cars after the cars were sold by issuing credit notes as authorized by Rule 31 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Rules , for brevity) read with Section 30 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act, for brevity), during the tax periods in...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »