Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE24h DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE W.P.NO.201274/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Sri Shadaksharappa S/o Veranna Age:59. years, Occ: Business, R/at Ward No.7, Katibase, Sindhanur, Raichur District. .... Petitioner (By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate) AND:1. Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/o Pampanna, (W/o Veeresh Ghanmath) Age:41. years, Occ: Housewife, Katibase, Sindhanur, Raichur District 584 101.2. Chandrashekar S/o Kanki Pampanna, Age:37. years, Occ: Business, Katibase, Sindhnur, Raichur District 584 101.3. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Sindhanur 584 101. ... Respondents (By Sri Sanjay Kulkarni, Advocate for R1; 2 R2 served; Petition as against respondent No.3 is dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2023) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Sindhanur i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - MFA No.116 of 2015 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.116 OF2015(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD DO10 CHENNAI, DWARAKA2D FLOOR NO79 UTTAMAR GANDHI SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU THROUGH ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX NO4445, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560025. REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) AND:1. MOHAMMED RAFI @ CHOTU S/O MOHAMMED USMAN AGED ABOUT36YEARS R/AT NO460 GOWRIPET, KOLAR-563101.2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR-563101. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. ARUNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 2 - MFA No.116 of 2015 THIS MFA FILED U/S1731) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.177/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATIO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE19h DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF2022(GM - POLICE) BETWEEN: MR.KULDEEP ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT23YEARS S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SHETTY RESIDING AT PUTHILA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 BY SECRETARY. 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION2REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGLAURU 560 001. 3 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 575 001. 4 . SUTHESH K.P., SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION D.K. DISTRICT 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA / RES...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
- 1 - WP No.103071 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.103071/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:1. SIKANDAR MOHAMMAD ALI DALAL, A/A54YEARS, SERVICE, R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A. HOLDER, MOHAMMAD UMMAR MOHAMMAD ALI DALAL, A/A57YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: U.K.2. MOHAMMAD UMMAR MOHAMMAD ALI DALAL, A/A57YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, NOW RESIDING AT KHB COLONY, HALILYAL, DIST: U.K.-. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A P HEGDE JANMANE AND SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATES) AND:1. BABU HANUMANTH MINDOLKAR DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1(A) SMT.SHARADA, W/O NARAYAN KESAREKAR, AGE:72. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O KESROLLI, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 1(B) SRI HANUMANT S/O BABU MINDOLKAR, AGE:69. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1(C) SRI NAMDEV S/O BABU MINDOLKAR, AGE:64. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1(D) SRI SHIVAJI S/O BABU MINDOLKAR, AGE:66. YEARS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO5373OF2019Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Appellant (Now HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.) VERSUS Respondent Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO6715OF2019Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Respondent JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to correct classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines (hereinafter, Page | 1 ADP) which are popularly known as AllinOne Integrated Desktop Computer (hereinafter, Concerned Goods) under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter, First Schedule). FACTS2 The Appellants imported certain units of the Concerned Goods and classified them under Tariff Item 8471 50 00 as per the prevalent selfassessment procedure. During subsequent examination by the Custom Authorities, the Concerned Goods were classified under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2965 OF2022Manik Majumder and Others Appellants Versus Dipak Kumar Saha (Dead) through Lrs. & Others Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala in Regular Second Appeal No.01/2005, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs and has decreed the suit by quashing and setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal. 12. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: That one Braja Mohan Dey was the owner and in possession of Schedule A property. He was alleged to have taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from his tenant, namely, Dhirendra Chandra Saha, original plaintiff No.2. The original owner, Braja Mohan Dey went to East Pakistan. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s).5534-5594 of 2011 THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU ETC. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J.1. The above set of appeals were referred to larger Bench of three Judges in terms of the order dated 05.03.2020 which reads as follows: Considering the fact that the issue raised in these appeals was referred to a larger Bench of three Judges in terms of order dated 27.02.1998 in Civil Appeal No.10457/1995 and other connected cases [reported in (1998) 9 SCC676 but which appeals later on repealed by Rajasthan Act, 1951, which is on similar lines with the provision involved in the present appeals. 1 Hence, we deem it appropriate to refer these appeals to a larger Bench of three Judges for an authoritative pronouncement on the questions involved. Registry is directed to place the matters before Honble the Chief Justice of India for constituting the appr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4072 OF2022C. Haridasan Appellant Versus Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Others Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Regular First Appeal No.63 of 2009, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendants and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Original Suit No.205/2006, decreeing the suit for specific performance, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 12. That the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement to sell dated 07.08.2005 under which the defendants agreed to sell the land in question for a consideration of Rs. 8,750/- per cent. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as advance towards the part sale consideration amount. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.59 OF2013Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Anr. Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.1283 OF2021Rapden Lepcha and Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the respective writ petitioners Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Others have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order 1 striking down Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961), more particularly, the definition of Sikkimese in Section 10 (26AAA) to the extent it excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975. The petitioners have also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) of the Act, 1961, insof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3704 OF2012K.L. Swamy ...Appellant(s) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3706 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.3705 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.3707 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.3708 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.3709 OF2012JUDGMENT :1. : M.R. SHAH, J.1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.2. In all these appeals, the dispute is with respect to levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act in respect of assessment completed under Section 158BD of the Act for belatedly filing the return of income for the block period and also the levy of surcharge under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act.3. For the sake of convenience Civil Appeal No.3706 of 2012 arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in ITA No.277 of 2004, is being treate...
Tag this Judgment!