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.
Union of India Vs Bundl Technologies Private Limited (Karnataka High Court) In this case The Officers of the Department entered the premises of the Company on 28.11.2019 at 10.30 a.m. During the course of the investigation from 28.11.2019 till 30.11.2019, DGGI Officers issued spot summons to the Directors and employees of the Company and their […]
PCIT Vs Smt. Sarojini M. Kushe (Karnataka High Court) In the present case, Assessing Officer has adopted the rate of Rs. 1600/- per square feet merely based on the letter given by the developer which is not supported with any particulars. It cannot be ruled out the possibility of the developer giving an inflated figure […]
Prashanthi Affiliates Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court ought not to have issued the order of attachment of property through BBMP Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought […]
As a necessary corollary of the above, in matrimonial causes the precept of ‘spousal–equality’ as a necessary facet of gender–equality enshrined u/a 14 of the Constitution must be given due recognition i.e., ‘truly fair equality of opportunity’ for both persons in the marriage in terms of opting into marriage & opting out, i.e., dissolution of marriage.
Karnataka State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by […]
Devendra Pai Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The fact that the assessment order observes regarding exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act, which indicates that the Assessing Officer was aware of non-claiming of the exemption. If the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L. HIRDAY (Supra) and the decision of the Madras […]
