PCIT Vs Cherian Abraham (Karnataka High Court) The undisputed facts are that the search was conducted in the case of a search person on 06.02.2012. Pursuant to which Section 153C proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Notice under Section 142[1] was issued on 12.09.2013 calling the assessee to file the return. Reply was filed on […]
Kumaresh K Vs Union Of India and Other (Karnataka High Court) It is evident that Section 14(1)(v) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) provides that an application which may be submitted by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by authorized […]
The issue of limitation for the first time is raised before the Appellate Court and the Court exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all before the Trial Court and hence I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment and directing the complainant to file necessary application to condone the delay and the Trial Court by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to consider the said application.
CTI Future Corporation Vs Ducgiang Chemical And Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company (Karnataka High Court) The arbitral award being an international commercial arbitral award is not in dispute, the award being rendered in Singapore is not in dispute, the enforceability of the said award in India is not in dispute in view of the notification […]
Nanjappa Vs State By Chikkajala Police Station (Karnataka High Court) (ii) The following guidelines are given to the registry and also to the District Courts all over the State to evolve mechanism with modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the Court and verify every application for being filed for regular or anticipatory […]
High Court held that Work from home after availing the maternity benefit could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the woman is such that it is possible for her to work from home.
Vijaya Vs Shekharappa (Karnataka High Court) Legislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 not to make it mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) would empower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending consideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion […]
Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karanataka (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court held that intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a […]
Mahantesh Vs Smt. Netharavati (Karnataka High Court) The undisputed facts of the case are that in the road traffic accident that had occurred on 23.11.2014, wherein the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377 was involved, the minor daughter of the claimants baby Kalpana, aged about 2 years had died. It is not in dispute that […]
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.
