Karnataka Court October 1982 Judgments
D.S. Gowda Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas668(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1980, passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2530 of 1980. 2. The appeal raises some questions of considerable importance as to the constraint on banking institutions to charge interest on loans/advances/overdrafts or any other financial accommodation and the power of courts to examine the rigour of such transaction and give relief to the debtor by calling into aid the usury enactments. 3. The facts, in brief, are these : One D. S. Gowda was allotted a site No. 132/4 at Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, by the Bangalore Development Authority. He wanted to construct some residential flats in that site. He approached M/s. Corporation Bank', readily acceded to his request and gave advance and overdraft facilities. D. S. Gowda took the loan and commenced construction. The loan sectioned was perhaps found insufficient. So, he could neither finish the building nor repay...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Textiles Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR256(KAR); [1983]142ITR256(Karn); 1983(1)KarLJ42
Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 10, 1981, passed by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 188 of 1980, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dated April 16, 1977, passed by the First Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 69 of 1975, on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant-1 from selling the suit schedule property and in any way interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiff claims that it was a registered partnership firm and that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased the same defendant-2 under a registered sale deed dated October 24, 1966. Proceedings were initiated by defendant-1 for recovery of arrears of income-tax due by defendant-2 who, in turn, so...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Textiles, Bangalore Vs. the Tax Recovery Officer, Government o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant174
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-4-1981 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 183 of 1980, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16-4-1977 passed by the First Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore, in Original Suit No, 69 of 1975. On his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant-1 from selling the suit schedule property and in any way interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiff claims that it was a Registered Partnership Firm and that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from defendant-2 under a registered sale deed dated 24-10-1966. Proceedings were initiated by defendant 1 for recovery of arrears of income tax due by defendant 2 who, in turn, sold the property in question...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnamurthy Rao Vs. Kamalakshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant235; ILR1983KAR94
Shetty, J.1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the order dated Nov. 3, 1981, passed by the Civil Judge, Udupi, on an application for divorce filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Kamalakshi-respondent is the wife of the appellant. They were married in the year 1972. They have got a female child born in Jan., 1976. After the child was born the couple did not live together. The wife lived in her parental house and husband as usual in his place of occupation. It is the case of the wife that her husband did not invite or take her, whereas the case of the husband is that his wife has had no desire to reunite.3. In 1980, they presented a joint petition in the Court of Civil Judge, Udupi, for dissolution of marriage stating that they have been living separately; that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The husband, along with the petition, has deposited Rs, 15,000/- as the agreed sum p...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Planters' Association Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1787
ORDERBopanna, J.42. On the pleadings of the parties and the competing contentions of their Learned Counsel, the following general points arise for consideration in these batches of petitions :(1) Did the draft notifications dated 30-7-1981 containing the proposals of the Government for revising/fixing the minimum wages and published in the Government Gazette dated 6-8-1981, comply with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act If not, are those notifications bad in law and vitiate the final notifications impugned in these proceedings ?(2) Was there a consideration by the Government of all the representations against the proposals for fixation/revision of minimum wages as required under Section 5(2) of the Act ?(3) If there was no consideration of those representations, what is the effect of such non-consideration ?(4) Was there any consultation between the Government and the Board as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act (in short 'the...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Raju Vs. Executive, Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ287Kant
ORDER1. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the Karnataka Vidhyuth Karkhane Ltd., Bangalore, formerly the Government Electric Factory ('KAVIKA' for short) has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to continue him in service until he reaches the age of 58 years. 2. On 29.9.1982 this Court issued emergent notice regarding rule and also granted an interim order not to relieve the petitioner. The matter has now come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. Statement of objections have been filed. Sri S. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, addressed arguments for the petitioner and respondent, respectively on the merits of the case. 3. It is common ground that KAVIKA is a Government Company wholly owned and controlled by the State Government. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in T. G. Srinivasamurthy v. B. E. M. L. [1982-I LLJ 2...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Model Education Society, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant207; 1983(1)KarLJ337
ORDER1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for issue of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition to the Tagore Memorial High School, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.2. The circumstances in which the petition has been presented may be stated briefly and they are as follows: It is convenient first to set out those facts which are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Society known by the name 'Deccan Model Education Society.' It is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is asserted by the petitioner that the members are all Christians and it was formed by the Christians for the purpose of establishing educational institutions of their choice. The petitioner's Society runs a primary school up to VII standard at Rajajinagar and that primary school has been recognised by the respondents. The primary school is run in the name and style of Tagore Memorial Nursery and Primary School.' On 8-10-1979, the society dec...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Mohan and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1982
Reported in: [1985]56CompCas265(Kar); 1983(1)KarLJ128
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This petition under s. 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, is made by the three directors of M/s. Agro (Pvt) Ltd., Bangalore, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company also is joined as a petitioner. The petitioners have been issued show-cause notices by the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, dated June 26, 1982, calling upon the directors of the company as to why the company and its directors of the company as to why the company and its directors should not be prosecuted for violating the provisions of s. 58(3)(c) read with rr. 3(2)(i) and 4 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The substance of the allegations in the show-cause notice is that even after the Companies Act, 1956, was amended in 1974 by the insertion of s. 58A in the Companies Act, 1956, prohibiting the acceptance of deposits or continuing deposits already accepted beyond April 1, 1975, except in accordance with the rules, viz., the Companies (Acceptanc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›