Karnataka Court February 1982 Judgments
Navjeevan Enterprises (Mysore) P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. T.N. Ramal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas217(Kar); 1982(2)KarLJ88
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two applications are by the official liquidator under s. 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with r. 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for orders of this court directing the respondents to pay to him certain sums of money due by them to the company in liquidation (M/s. Navajeevan Enterprises (Mysore) P. Ltd., since ordered to be wound up by an order of this court dated January 6, 1978). 2. The facts alleged by the official liquidator in C.A. No. 172 of 1980 may be taken, as the first respondent in both the applications are common and evidence led in that application is to be treated as common to both the applications by consent of the parties. The first respondent, T. N. Ramalingaiah, was a subscriber to two chits in the company in liquidation which was carrying on business in chit fund transaction. In group NSD II, he had subscribed to chit No. 24 having a value of Rs. 5,000. At the auction held on September 10, 1973, he was the suc...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer, Mysore City, Iii Circle, Mysore and anr. Vs. M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC56(Kar)
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the assessment order (exhibit D) made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mysore City, III Circle, for the period 1st January, 1975, to 31st December, 1975, and the demand notice issued (exhibit C) dated 30th August, 1977. The second respondent, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Mysore, has been made a party on the ground that the assessment proceedings are now transferred to him and he is now exercising the jurisdiction in respect of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner submitted a return as per exhibit A in which she disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 10,38,901.87 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 10,01,952.67 and a tax liability of Rs. 36,966.22. The Commercial Tax Officer made an order purporting to be under section 12(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. But from the order it is seen that he did not accept the return as complete and true. He arrived at the liability to ta...
Tag this Judgment!V.B. Purohit Vs. Gadag,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas360(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is an application under s. 466 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with s. 518 thereof. The applicant is a shareholder of M/s. Nagaragali Cement Co. Ltd. The said company was incorporated on April 11, 1963, and it has its registered office at Vidyanagar, Hubli. 2. The authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 1 crore divided into 10 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The subscribed capital of the company is Rs. 3,80,280 though only 76,056 equity shares have been issued. But the call made so far is only in the sum of Rs. 5. The sub- scribed capital, which is only half of the value of the issued capital, Rs. 72,292, was treated as allotment money and is stated to be due from the shareholders other than the directors of the company. Thus, the subscribed capital of the company is only Rs. 3,07,988. 3. The company, in 1966, acquired the lease of limestone quarry in an extent of 255 acres of land from the Government. This was with the object of carrying out ...
Tag this Judgment!Annasab Melappa Pattanshetty and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1553; ILR1982KAR588; 1982(1)KarLJ433
Nesargi, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case Number 110 of 1980, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, have challenged the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on them. They have been convicted for, each one of them, having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The deceased is one Bapu, the eldest brother of the two appellants-accused P.W. 2. Appasaheb is another elder brother of the accused. P.W. 3 Channarawwa and P.W. 10 Melappa are the parents of the accused, P.W. 2 and the deceased. P.W. 4 Susalawwa is the wife of the deceased. These persons and P.Ws. 5 to 9 and 11 are the residents of Bableshwar, in Bijapur District. There is a police station in Bableshwar. P.Ws. 12 to 15 were attached to that police station. P.W. 16 Hanamant and P.W. 17 Fakirappa were the Circle Inspectors of Police of Bijapur Rural Police Station within wh...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: ILR1982KAR614
Nesargi, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in exercise of his power under S. 395(2), Cr.P.C. 2. The relevant facts as seen from the order of the learned Sessions Judge are that the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Tiptur, committed the accused Prakash son of Rajanna, aged 15 years, of Ballekatte Village, Tiptur, Tiptur Taluk, to the Court of Session to take trial for having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court. The case was registered in the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 62/81. The Public Prosecutor and Sri K. V. Subramanyaswamy the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the State and the accused, before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge found that the charge-sheet itself described the accused as aged 15 years and therefore a child within the meaning of the provisions of the Karnataka Children Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, he pr...
Tag this Judgment!Dasa Rao Vs. Thungabhadra Board and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant7; 1982(2)KarLJ146
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-6-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary, in R.A.64/72 on his file dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-4-972, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Hospet, in Original Suit No.208 of 1970 on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit to restrain defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit lands namely S.Nos. 382 and 383 of Venkatapur village. He averred that the said lands were leased to him by the 1st defendant in the suit through its Executive Engineer by an order dated 21-1-1964 for a period of one year. After the expiry of the lease he remained in possession of the suits lands as a tenant holding over up to the year 1968. Inspite of it, defendants asked him to vacate by a letter dated 25-10-1969. According to him he was cultivating the lands lawfully. Hence the defendants had no right to evict him unless in due course ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna and Company Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC263(Kar)
Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this batch of petitions under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are dealers under the Karnataka Sales tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), challenge the constitutional validity of section 8A(3A) of the 'Act' [as inserted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Karnataka Act No. 7 of 1981)] and the proceedings for revision, rectification or reassessment, as the case may be, initiated against them and the notices issued in this behalf by the authorities under the 'Act' for the assessment periods from 1st April, 1972, to 10th July, 1981. In the case of some of the petitioners where these proceedings have been completed, the orders which the proceedings have culminated in are challenged by the petitioners concerned. 2. Section 8A(1) of the 'Act' empowers the State Government to make, by notification, exemption or reduction in the rate respecting any tax payable under the 'Act' on the sale or purchase of any specified go...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant292; 1982(2)KarLJ32
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been brought on behalf of the State of Karnataka challenging the judgment and decree dated June 29, 1974 made by the Civil Judge, Raichur in O. S. 25/1 of 1966. 2. The suit was instituted by the State Government for recovery of Rs. 30,983-75 from the Southern Railway as compensation for the damage caused to a transformer consigned for carriage from Madras Harbour to the railway station at Raichur. 3. There are, however, some undisputed facts which we may notice here itself. The transformer in question when reached Raichur railway station was found damaged. Oil was found leaking due to radiator fins damage. The plank of the packing was found broken at the vertical line. The bottom horizontal plank was also bent. The oil from the transformer, was found leaking very heavily from the pipe joint. On the right hand corner of the rear of the transformer the whole packing was found displaced. On the left hand bottom side the two iron slabs supporting bel...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganayakamma Vs. N. Govinda Narayan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant264; ILR1982KAR121; 1982(1)KarLJ485
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated November 24, 1973 made by the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore decreeing the original Suit No. 30 of 1970 for specific performance of a contract.The facts are shortly as follows:-2. Mr. Venugopal was the owner of a house bearing Municipal No. 1869, situated at an important locality in Mysore City. He was residing there along with his wife Ranganayakamma alias Rangamani. They were defendants in the suit instituted by Govinda Narayan for specific performance of an agreement Ext. P-1 dated November 17, 1969. The case of the plaintiff was that both the defendants agreed inter alia to sell that house in his favour for Rs. 21,000/within three months there from. They received Rs. 3,000/- as advance and the balance of R,3. 18,000/- was agreed to be payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The period of three months set out in the agreement for execution of the sale deed expired on February 17...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ramanatha Gupta Vs. S. Razaack
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant314; ILR1982KAR579; 1982(1)KarLJ394
1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-2-1973 passed by the Second Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore in R. A. No. 35/70, on his file, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff on reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1970 passed by the Second Addl. First Munsiff, Bangalore in 0. S. No. 489/64 on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for injunction.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the premises known as Ali Buildings bearing No. 840, Old Taluk Cutcherry Road, Nagarthpet and 112 Chowdeswari Temple Street, and defendant is the owner of the premises adjoining his premises bearing Nos. 113 and 114, Old Taluk Cutcherry Road. There are two windows of the size of 36' X 56' on the up stairs of the plaintiffs building through which the light and air passes to the property of the plaintiff. These windows and ventilators have been according to the plaintiff in existence for over 50 years and the plaintiff has been in enjo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »