Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court allowed the transfer of the divorce petition to Belagavi. It reasoned that the distance between the two cities is significant and transferring the case would be convenient for the petitioner.

The High Court held that the reasons provided for the delay did not constitute sufficient cause. The court emphasized the need for diligence from authorities, especially in matters of state interest.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act is not in dispute and the petitioner can avail it. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be addressed in the appeal.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping the grounds urged open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court modified the compensation amount, reducing it to Rs. 20,86,952/-. The court applied a split multiplier and adjusted conventional heads based on Supreme Court rulings.

The tribunal erred in holding that the items sold were different from those declared under VDIS. The change in nomenclature from jewellery to bullion was not consequential, and the authorities failed to properly consider the conversion and assaying details.

The tribunal erred in holding that the items sold were different from those declared under VDIS. The change in nomenclature from jewellery to bullion was not consequential, and the authorities failed to properly consider the conversion and assaying details.

The tribunal held that if only a part of the deposited amount is utilized for a new asset within the specified time, the unutilized portion of the capital gains is chargeable to tax. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the unutilized amount after applicable tax deduction.

The tribunal erred in holding that the items sold were different from those declared under VDIS. The change in nomenclature from jewellery to bullion was not consequential, and the authorities failed to properly consider the conversion and assaying details.

The High Court quashed the impugned order for special audit. The Assessing Authority was directed to re-consider the matter in light of the previous High Court judgment and provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The High Court held that the Principal Commissioner has the jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the Act and that the petitioner has a remedy before the Principal Commissioner to address any shortcomings in the notice. The court found no per se illegality or error apparent on the face of the record to interfere with the notice at this stage.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru considered the writ petition filed by Panama Nature Fresh Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition. The memo was placed on record, and permission to withdraw was granted. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case or the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the recovery of the tax demand. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues, and the operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

The High Court permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions mentioned in a previous circular.

The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing the compensation based on a higher multiplier and revised calculations for loss of dependency and conventional heads.

The Court held that the petitioners' contention for full pension restoration was contrary to Section 12-A of the Act, which outlines the commutation process. Accepting their claim would lead to double payment and disadvantage other pensioners.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding compensation. The High Court modified the award, enhancing compensation for loss of consortium and related heads, while dismissing the insurance company's appeal.

The Court held that the petitioners' contention for full pension restoration was contrary to Section 12-A of the Act, which outlines the commutation process. Accepting their claim would lead to double payment and disadvantage other pensioners.

The Court held that the petitioners' contention for full pension restoration was contrary to Section 12-A of the Act, which outlines the commutation process. Accepting their claim would lead to double payment and disadvantage other pensioners.

The Court held that the petitioners' contention for full pension restoration was contrary to Section 12-A of the Act, which outlines the commutation process. Accepting their claim would lead to double payment and disadvantage other pensioners.

The High Court treated the impugned communication as a notice and directed the petitioners to furnish their explanation. The Income Tax Officer was instructed to pass an order after considering the petitioners' reply.

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated 23rd September 2019, noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (the Revenue) had filed a memo dated 17th September 2019 seeking to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the ITAT's order.

The High Court quashed the impugned order, finding the Commissioner's decision to allot the tender to respondent No. 4 to be arbitrary and contrary to the committee's report. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the committee's report and take a decision in accordance with law.

The High Court of Karnataka did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the petitioner filed a memo dated September 19, 2019, seeking to withdraw the writ petition. The Court took the memo on record and accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The dismissal was made with a reservation of liberty for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The Court also permitted the authority to expedite the matter. No specific findings were made on the validity of the order under challenge, as the case was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, acknowledging the new circular's applicability to pending matters. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the case falls under exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and permitted the authority to expedite the matter. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original order under challenge, as the petition was withdrawn.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for new societies in rural areas who were unaware of the filing requirements. The impugned orders were set aside.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for new societies in rural areas who were unaware of the filing requirements. The impugned orders were set aside.

The High Court held that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act. The court found no reason to entertain the writ petition when an alternative effective remedy is available.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for first-time filers in the agricultural and cooperative sectors. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for re-examination.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for first-time filers who are agriculturists or involved in milk business and cooperative societies. The matter was remanded for re-examination.

The High Court held that the authorities ought to have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for first-time filers in the initial year of business. The court emphasized the need to consider genuine hardship and promptness in filing returns.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for new societies in rural areas who were unaware of the filing requirements. The impugned orders were set aside.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for new societies in rural areas who were unaware of the filing requirements. The impugned orders were set aside.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for new societies in rural areas who were unaware of the filing requirements. The impugned orders were set aside.

The High Court held that the authorities should have been more liberal in condoning the delay, especially for new societies in rural areas who were unaware of the filing requirements. The impugned orders were set aside.

The tribunal held that the Advocate General's order rejecting the consent application was not a speaking order and was passed without application of mind. Therefore, the order could not be sustained.

The High Court held that the Family Court's order was passed in a cryptic manner without considering the husband's application and without ascertaining the income of the parties. The court emphasized the necessity of assigning reasons in judicial decisions.

The High Court held that the Family Court's order was passed in a cryptic manner without considering the husband's application and without ascertaining the income of the parties. The court emphasized the necessity of assigning reasons in judicial decisions.

The High Court held that writ appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, are not maintainable when the original order was passed exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appeals were dismissed on this ground of maintainability, not on merits.

The High Court modified the MACT's judgment, re-apportioning the liability between two insurance companies. The court determined that the insurer of the vehicle bearing registration number KA-22/N-6642 was liable for 65% of the compensation, and the insurer of the vehicle bearing registration number MH-11/A-9502 was liable for 35%.

The revenue's appeal was found to be in excess of the pecuniary limitation prescribed by a recent circular. Therefore, the revenue sought and was granted permission to withdraw the appeal.

The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals, citing a recent circular regarding pecuniary limitations. The court accepted the memo and permitted the withdrawal.

The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the pecuniary limitations prescribed by the circular.

The High Court accepted the Revenue's submission that the appeal did not survive due to the pecuniary limitation prescribed in the circular. The Revenue was permitted to withdraw the appeal.

The High Court held that writ appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, are not maintainable when the original order was passed exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appeals were dismissed on this ground of maintainability, not on merits.

The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals, citing a recent circular regarding pecuniary limitations. The court accepted the memo and permitted the withdrawal.

The High Court held that writ appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, are not maintainable when the original order was passed exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appeals were dismissed on this ground of maintainability, not on merits.

The High Court held that writ appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, are not maintainable when the original order was passed exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appeals were dismissed on this ground of maintainability, not on merits.

The Court granted bail to the petitioner on the grounds of parity with accused No. 4, who was previously released on bail. The Court noted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that of accused No. 4.

The High Court held that the Single Judge correctly concluded he had exercised powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in addition to constitutional writ powers. Therefore, the appeals challenging the order were not maintainable.