Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.51012/2019 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.52575/2019, 15828/2021, 16081/2021, 16088/2021 (GM-RES) IN WP510122019: BETWEEN: SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, R/O MANAGUNDI VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DIST.-. 580 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND:1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, 2 HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI S.V. RAJU, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ALONGWITH SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; (VIDEO CONFERENCING) SRI VIVEK S ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.51012/2019 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.52575/2019, 15828/2021, 16081/2021, 16088/2021 (GM-RES) IN WP510122019: BETWEEN: SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, R/O MANAGUNDI VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DIST.-. 580 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND:1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, 2 HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI S.V. RAJU, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ALONGWITH SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; (VIDEO CONFERENCING) SRI VIVEK S ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.830 OF2022(T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.831 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.832 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.834 OF2022(T-IT) IN W.A.NO.830/2022 BETWEEN:1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 ROOM No.322, 3RD FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALBIR SINGH THE THEN ASG; SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ - ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI D P SHARMA AGED ABOUT45YEARS NO.328, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU 560 002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SREEHARI KUTSA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.830 OF2022(T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.831 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.832 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.834 OF2022(T-IT) IN W.A.NO.830/2022 BETWEEN:1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 ROOM No.322, 3RD FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALBIR SINGH THE THEN ASG; SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ - ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI D P SHARMA AGED ABOUT45YEARS NO.328, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU 560 002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SREEHARI KUTSA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.830 OF2022(T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.831 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.832 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.834 OF2022(T-IT) IN W.A.NO.830/2022 BETWEEN:1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 ROOM No.322, 3RD FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALBIR SINGH THE THEN ASG; SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ - ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI D P SHARMA AGED ABOUT45YEARS NO.328, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU 560 002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SREEHARI KUTSA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC150Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3589 OF2023High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Appellant versus State of U.P. & Ors. Respondents with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) nos.13284-13289 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal..Diary No.49052 of 2023 JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.Table of Contents A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................. 2 I. Directions in Asian Resurfacing ................................. 2 II. Order of reference to Larger Bench ........................... 7 B. SUBMISSIONS ............................................................. 8 C. ANALYSIS .................................................................. 14 I. Object of passing interim orders .............................. 14 II. High Courts power to vacate or modify interim relief .................................................................................. 16 Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023 etc. Page 1 of 47 III. Whether a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1925)ILR68Mad1
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. In A.D. 1674 during the reign of the great Moghul Emperor Aurangzeb, Ekoji alias Venkaji took Tanjore from its Nayak Rulers without firing a shot. This Mahratta General was the son of Shahji who had attained military distinction under the independent Muhamadan States of Ahmednugger and Bijapur and in the course of one of his military expeditions had levied a contribution from the Nayak Chiefs of Tanjore and Madura in the South Carnatic country.2. Ekoji's grandfather was Malloji, a Mahratta of the Bhonsle family, who distinguished himself under Jadava or Jadow Rao, a Mahratta Chief in the service of the Ahmednugger Government, and won the hand of his daughter Jiji Bai for his elder son Shahji. Shahji by his first wife Jiji Bai was the father of the famous Sivaji who founded the Mahratta Empire in the Deccan in the 17th century, and by his second wife Tukka Bai, daughter of Mahratta parents with the surname of Mohitai, was the father of Ekoji, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad497
Spencer, Offg.C.J.1. In A.D. 1674 during the reign of the great Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb, Ekoji alias Venkaji took Tanjore from its Nayak Rulers without firing a shot. This Mahratta General was the son of Shabji who had attained military distinction under the independent Muhamadan States of Ahmednugger and Bijipur and in the course of one of his military expeditions had levied a contribution from the Nayak Chiefs of Taujore and Madura in the South Carnatic country.2. Ekoji's grandfather was Malloji, a Mahratta of the Bhonsle family, who distinguished himself under Jadava or Jadow Bow, a Mahratta Chief in the service of the Ahmednugger Government, and won the hand of his daughter Jiji Bai for his elder son Shahji. Shahji by his first wife Jiji Bai waa the father of the famous Sivaji who founded the Mahratta Empire in the Deccan in the 17th century, and by his second wife Tukka Bai, daughter of Mahratta parents with the surname of Mohitai, was the father of Ekoji, the founder of the Mahra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gitlow v. People - 268 U.S. 652 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Gitlow v. People, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Gitlow v. People No.19 Argued April 12, 1923 Reargued November 23, 1923 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 652 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 2. Freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is not an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 3. That a State, in the exercise of its police power, may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open to question. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Minnesota - 270 U.S. 181 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) United States v. Minnesota No. 17, Original Argued January 4, 5, 1926 Decided March 1, 1926 270 U.S. 181 Syllabus 1. A suit against a state brought by the United States as guardian of tribal Indians to recover the title, or money proceeds, of lands alleged to have been patented to the state by the United States in breach of its trust obligations to the Indians is not a suit in which the Indians are the real parties in interest, but one in which the United States is really and directly interested, and is within the original jurisdiction of this Court. P. 270 U. S. 193 . 2. The six-year limitation (Act of March 3, 1891) is inapplicable where the United States sues to annul patents issued in alleged violation of rights of its Indian wards and of its obligations to them. P. 270 U. S. 195 . 3. State statutes of limitations do not apply to such suits. Id. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!