Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: This M.S.A. is filed under Section 54(2) 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, dated 02.04.2012 and LAC No.193/2010 dated 26.03.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bailhongal, and etc.,) 1. This is a miscellaneous second appeal, assailing judgment and award passed in LAC. Appeal No.130/2011 by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, dated 02.04.2012 by which, judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bailhongal, (hereinafter referred to as the reference court for the sake of convenience) dated 26.3.2011 in LAC.No.193/2010 has been modified by partly allowing the appeal. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that an extent of 17 guntas out of 1 acre 37 guntas of land, in Sy.No.6/3+4b; 25 guntas in Sy.No.87/5 and 35 guntas in Sy.No.85/1 situated at Mugabasava village, Bai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(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 ...
Tag this Judgment!