Karnataka Court March 2016 Judgments
Smt. Asha Vs. State of Karnataka By
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MARCH2016BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.231/2016 BETWEEN:1. 2. SMT. ASHA W/O SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT32YEARS, RESIDING AT NO359 16TH MAIN ROAD, BEGUR - HONGASANDRA, MICO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560068 SMT VANITHA (VIJI @ VIJAYA) W/O D KIRAN, AGED ABOUT26YEARS, RESIDING AT NO901A, BEGUR HONGASANDRA, MICO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560068 3. D KIRAN S/O D S RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, RESIDING AT NO901A, BEGUR HONGASANDRA, MICO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560068 SOMASHEKAR S/O KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT36YEARS, 4. 2 RESIDING AT NO359 16TH MAIN ROAD, BEGUR - HONGASANDRA, MICO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560068 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri: HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE BANGALORE - 5600 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) ... RESPONDENT (By Sri: S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS H...
Tag this Judgment!Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MARCH2016BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.952/2010 BETWEEN:1. SHIVANNA S/O SANNATHAMMEGOWDA AGED28YEARS2 BASAVARAJU S/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED35YEARS3 MANJA S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED31YEARS4 1 TO3ARE RESIDENT AT ANNECHAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK JAVAREGOWDA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED38YEARS R/OF BACHENAHALLY KOPPALU VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK ... PETITIONERS (By Smt : K SHEELA, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLENARASIPURA RURAL POLICE REPTD PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT2BUILDING, BANGALORE (By Sri: S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT.17.02.10 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J.HOLENARASIPURA IN C.C.NO.59/08 AND ORDER DT.24.05.10 PASSED BY THE P.O. FTC & ADDL. S.J.HOLENARASIPURA IN CRL.A.NO.15/2010. THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR H...
Tag this Judgment!Thulasi Vs. Divisional Controller, Hassan District
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 11/09/2013, passed in MVC No.150/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakaleshpur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. Though this matter is posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for Final Disposal. This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 11/09/2013, passed in MVC No.150/2012, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakaleshpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). 2. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,284/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanagouda and Others Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC 1908, against the order dated 01.08.2015 passed in LAC No. 230/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Koppal, dismissing the petition filed U/S. 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act. 1. Office has raised objections regarding maintainability of these revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, I have heard learned counsel for petitioners on the question of maintainability. 2. Order under challenge has been passed by the reference Court on reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of the claim made by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award dated 19.02.2010 in respect of several lands involved in these batch of revision petitions. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed market value at Rs. 29,750/- per acre. The land owners/claimants filed applications under Section 18(1) seeking reference ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Shetty Nellikatte and Others Vs. Aatoor Mohammed Ali and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petition are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Order Dated 7.5.2015 passed by the R-2 vide ANN-A. and grant an Interim Order to stay the Operation and Execution of Order Dated 7.5.2015 passed by the R-2 Vide ANN-A. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dtd.24.2.2016 issued by the Respondent Bangalore to an extent of fixing the Reservation to the Post of President of Puttur Municipality Vide Annex-A.) 1. An election was held on 7.3.2013 for the Town Municipal Council, Puttur, D K District. The petitioners and respondent No.1 - A M Ali (hereinafter referred to as `the complainant' for short) contested for the post of councilors. There were 27 councilor seats notified and an election has been held and results were declared on 12.3.2013 declaring names of 27, having elected as councilors for Puttur Town Municipal Council. Out of 27 councilors,...
Tag this Judgment!Siddamma Vs. Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society Limited and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayers: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the fifth respondent vide Annexure-Q, consequently sale deed registered as document dated 14.8.2012 and registered by the senior Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi vide Annexure-K and consequently hold that document dated 18.3.2015 registered by the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi [Banashankari], Bangalore, in favour of the second respondent herein vide Annexure-L is nullity in law and not binding on the petitioner. This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the second sale vide sale deed dated 14.8.2012 vide document registered as sale deed dated 14.8.2012 by the Senior Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore vide Annexure-K and consequently hold that sale deed dated 18.3.2015 executed by the third respondent in favour of the second respondent vide Annexure-L as bad in law.) 1. These peti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-Tax-III, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Subhash Kabini Powe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: This ITA is filed under Sec. 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of Order dated: 28/11/2014 passed in ITA No. 258/BANG/2014, for the Assessment year 2009-2010.) 1. The appellant/Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India v. CIT [317 ITR 218] and M/s. Sterling Foods v. CIT [237 ITR 579] that any ancillary profits should be excluded from the meaning of profits derived from the eligible business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IA and the consideration received from the sale of carbon credits is not derived from the eligible business undertakings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in treating the sale proceeds ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonal Apparel Private Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to read down the provisions of Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, prior to its amendment vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015 at Annexure-A in such a manner that the petitioner is permitted to calculate its net tax liability by deducting the input tax paid on its purchases from its output tax liability irrespective of the month in which the selling dealer raises invoices or in the alternative and etc;) 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as the petitioners claim to be similarly aggrieved. 2. The petitioners in their respective petitions are seeking to question the vires of Section 10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (Hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act, for brevity.) 3. It is a common ground of the petitioners that the Assessing Officer under the KVAT Act, in each of the impugned orders, has interpreted Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Earth Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in writ petition Nos.766/97 c/w 37048-49/1995 and 37227-28/95 dated 7-4-2003.) 1. These Writ Appeals are preferred calling in question the Judgment passed in Writ Petition Nos.766/1997 c/w. 37048-49/1995 and 37227-28/1995 dated 7th April, 2003, wherein the learned single Judge quashed the acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification dated 17.7.1992 is LAQ SR No.304 of 1992-93 and also the final Notification dated 3.5.1993 in No.REV.DEPT.109.LAQ.MY.92 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1962 by the first respondent State Government. 2. Before adverting to the grounds raised for challenging the orders passed by the learned single Judge, we prefer to have brief factual matrix of the case: The appellant M/s. Bharath Earth Movers Gruha Nirmana Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Mysore, a Co-operative Housing Society sought for acquisition of certain lands (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishnappa Vs. K.M. Anjinappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: This RSA is filed under S.100 r/w Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2010 passed in R.A.No.257/2005 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Kolar, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.252/1993 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Malur.) The plaintiff has filed this appeal. O.S.No.252/1993 filed in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Malur, to pass a decree of declaration that the sale transaction of the suit property between the defendants is not binding on the plaintiff and for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants, specifically to perform the decree passed in O.S.No.25/1989 and for execution of the sale deed and put him in full possession having been dismissed, R.A.No.257/2005 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), at Kolar. The II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kolar, itinerating at Malur, having dismissed the appeal, this second a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »