Court : Karnataka
1/23 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF JUNE2018PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONBLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA C.E.A.Nos.30/2017 & 62/2017 C/W C.E.A.No.66/2016 C.E.A.Nos.30/2017 & 62/2017 BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BENGALURU-I COMMISSIONERATE2D FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGAR BUS STAND COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 051. (By Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED DOORAVANINAGAR BENGALURU-560 016. APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT (By Mr. K. PARAMESWARAN & Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY P, ADVS.,) THESE C.E.A.s ARE FILED UNDER SECTION35 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, PRAYING TO I. ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER Date of Judgment 20-06-2018 C.E.A.Nos.30/2017 & 62/2017 C/W C.E.A.No.66/2016 The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Limited 2/23 No.21010-21011/2016 DATED2510/2016 PA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(This MFA filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2010 passed in MVC No.3544/2007 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral) "The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." The above observation made by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013)12 3CC 649 vide para 22.4.(d)] is quoted as it is relevant in the context of a large number of appeals preferred by claimants against awards of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals with huge delays. In the present appeal, the delay is two years. 2. What amounts to 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay in preferring an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal? This is the question tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF JULY2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA MISC.FIRST APPEAL NO.103381/2014 (FC) BETWEEN: Smt.Shilpa W/o Praveen S.R. D/o D.M.Shivakumar Sharma 27 years, Presently at Door No.253 Ward No.1, N.S.Murthy Compound, Sandur Bellary District. (By Ms.V.Vidya Iyer, Adv.) AND: Praveen S.R. S/o S.P.Rameshwaraiah 32 years Software Engineer R/a Door No.505/A20h Ward, Moka Road Gandhinagar Bellary. (By Sri.S.S.Yadrami, Adv.) .. APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT2This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family judgment and decree Courts Act, 1984, against the dt.30.10.2014 passed in Matrimonial Case No.221/2013 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bellary, allowing the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment on 12.7.2016 and coming on for Pronouncement of judgment this day, Rathnakala J., delivered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA ITA NO.268/2014 BETWEEN:1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (LTU), JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.23 & 24, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, VEERAPURA, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION260 OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED2801.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.278/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR200809 PRAYING TO I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.278/BANG/2013 DATED2801.2014 AND CONFIRM APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayers: These ITAs are filed U/S 260-A of IT Act, 1961 arising out of order dated: 10.07.2009 passed in ITA No.172/BNG/2009, for the Assessment Year 2001-02 in ITA No.766/2009; ITA No.170/BNG/2009, for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 in ITA No.769/2009; ITA No.173/BANG/2009, for the Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.765/2009; and ITA No.171/BNG/2009, for the Assessment Year 2000-01 in ITA No.767/2009 praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, ii. Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.172/BNG/2009, dated: 10.07.2009 in ITA No.766/2009; ITA No.170/BNG/2009 in ITA No.769/2009; ITA No.173/BANG/2009 in ITA No.765/2009; and ITA No.171/BNG/2009 in ITA No.767/2009 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. This ITA is filed U/S 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant102; AIR1965Mys102; (1964)1MysLJ488
(1) This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It arised from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Mysore, in Election Petition No. 48/62 on its file.(2) The appellant is the returned candidate in the general elections held in 1962, from the Mandya Constituency to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. The first respondent herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He is one of the voters in that Constituency. The second respondent was one of the defeated candidates. He was the Congress nominee. The third respondent was yet another candidate who contested the general elections without success. The tribunal set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices falling under Section 123(4) of the 'Act' during the Election. It declared the second respondents having been elected despite the fact that he had secured less voters than the appellant. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Kar)128; [1986]160ITR50(KAR); [1986]160ITR50(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the petitioners in all these cases have challenged certain provision of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), on grounds that are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. The first petitioner in each of Writ Petitions Nos. 7399, 8785 of 1984, 1237, 1238, 1269 and 1623 of 1985, who are the principal petitioners, are either public or private limited companies incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective writ petitions. The second petitioner in each of them are either directors or shareholders of the respective companies, who have joined to avoid technical objections based on the challenge to article 19 of the Constitution. We will, therefore, treat the first petitioner in each of them as the petitioner. The other petitioners in all other cases are partnership firms engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Petition Is Filed Under Section 115 Of Cpc Against The Order Dated 20.10.2011 Passed On I A.No. 1 In R.A.No. /2010 On The File Of The Prl. Sr.Civil Judge and Cjm, Mangalore, Allowing Ia No.1 Filed Under Section. 5 Of Limitation Act.) 1. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths G.Krishnamurthy and Srivatsa, learned Senior Advocates appearing for petitioner and respondents respectively. 2. Perused the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by Sr.Civil Judge, Mangalore in allowing I.A.No.I on cost of Rs.2,000/- in unnumbered R.A. of 2010 (now said to have been numbered as 75/2014). 3. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this appeal are as under. 4. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S No. 111/1997 in respect of suit schedule property against defendants. Said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.07.1998. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree, an appeal came to be filed under Section 96 of CPC. Since, said appeal was belatedly filed namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant260; AIR1959Mys260; 1959CriLJ1454; ILR1959KAR407
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrals, First Class, Ramdrug in C. C. No. 331 of 1957. By the afore-said order the learned Magistrate committed the four respondents and nine others to take their trial on charges under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149. 302. 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Coda and 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who perused the records and heard the arguments addressed to him on behalf of the respondents, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate committing the accused in C.C. No. 331 of 1957 to take their trial in the Court of Session without examining all the witnesses who had been cited in the charge-sheet as wit-nesses for the incident is illegal and therefore the order should be quashed.The learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1988Kant174; 1987(2)KarLJ394
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dt. 27th Sep. 1977, passed in O.S.No. 29/75 on the file of the Civil Judge, Gadag. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant. In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.2. The suit was one for partition brought by the plaintiff, who is respondent 1 here. The suit plea was that she was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties belonging to her deceased father and that the 1st defendant was her step brother and defendants 2 and 3 were her step sisters, being the son and daughters of her deceased father through his second wife. She sought partition by metes and bounds and separate possession.3. The 1st defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. While admitting the relationship of the defendants and the plaintiff, the 1st defendant resisted the claim on the ground that after the death of his father on the advice o...
Tag this Judgment!