Karnataka Court March 1990 Judgments

V. M. Salgaocar and Brother Ltd. Vs. Deputy Controller and Others. Cho ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Kar)49; [1991]187ITR381(KAR); [1991]187ITR381(Karn)

M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS. J. - These four writ petitions are disposed of by the following common order as the grievances of the petitioners therein are identical and they have sought the same relief. The petitioner in Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7166 of 1989 is Chowgule and Co. Ltd. Mormugao Harbour, Goa. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7273 of 1989 is Sociedade de Formento Industrial Ltd. Margao, Goa. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10636 of 1989 is V.S. Dempo and Co. Ltd. Campal, Panji, Goa.All the petitioners are mine-owners, mining, among other things, manganese and iron ores and they are also exporters of the ores to foreign countries mostly to Japan and Korea, it is alleged in the first of the petitions (I propose to go by the facts stated in that petition) that it entered into an agreement with the foreign buyers on credit price for iron and manganese ore and the foreign buyers sent their ships either owned by them or chartered by them and the petitioners loade...

V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Ltd. Vs. Deputy Controller and Others

Court: Karnataka

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs., J.1. These four writ petitions are disposed of by the following common order as the grievances of the petitioners therein are identical and they have sought the same relief. The petitioner in Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7166 of 1989 is Chowgule and Co. Ltd. Mormugao Harbour, Goa. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7273 of 1989 is Sociedade de Formento Industrial Ltd. Margao, Goa. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10636 of 1989 is V.S. Dempo and Co. Ltd. Campal, Panji, Goa. 2. All the petitioners are mine-owners, mining, among other things, manganese and iron ores and they are also exporters of the ores to foreign countries mostly to Japan and Korea, it is alleged in the first of the petitions (I propose to go by the facts stated in that petition) that it entered into an agreement with the foreign buyers on credit price for iron and manganese ore and the foreign buyers sent their ships either owned by them or chartered by them and the petitioners l...

C.B. Pardhanani and Others Vs. M.B. Pardhanani

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1993]78CompCas540(Kar); ILR1990KAR2604; 1990(2)KarLJ298

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This petition which purports to be under section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', for short), seeks the following reliefs against the respondent :'(1) to declare that the respondent is guilty of acts of mismanagement and misappropriation and is a recipient of illegal gratification while in the management of Mac Charles (India) Ltd.; (2) direct the respondent to restore to Mac Charles (India) Ltd., the sum of Rs. 44,78,000 or such other sum as may be found due to the company in respect of such acts of mismanagement, misappropriation and illegal gratification indulged in while in the management of the company ; (3) punish the respondent under sections 539, 540, 541, 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 (read with Schedule XI), and award such imprisonment as this hon'ble court deems just and appropriate ; (4) remove the respondent from the office of director of the company ; (5) pass temporary injunction restraining him from attending the board meeti...

Hmt Limited Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1991]188ITR457(KAR); [1991]188ITR457(Karn); 1990(2)KarLJ487

S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Federal Military Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and applied for grant of approval and deductions as contemplated under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to the first respondent. The agreement consisted of various types of passing of technical information, know-how, designs, trade mark, logo and also trading of Nigerian personnel in India among other matters. Article 15.1 of the agreement speaks about the payment of royalty which is at the rate of 2 per cent. of the value added for seven years in respect of the right granted to the Nigerian Government for exclusive use in that country and other ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) countries as provided in articles 4.1 and 4.1,1. The first respondent took the view that the same is a trade restriction on the petitioner and the consideration in respect of that restriction is outside the scope...

P. Shanmugam Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR1631; 1990(2)KarLJ192

K.A. Swami, J.1. The office has raised an objection that the appeal is filed without the grounds and without being signed by the Counsel. On going through the records, it is noticed that the appeal memo is as follows:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKAHIGH COURT ACT, 1961 WRIT APPEAL No. /1990Between: P. Shanmugam, Major,Junior Assistant,O/o the Executive Engineer,(Electrical), KarnatakaElectricity Board, Hunsur Division,Hunsur,Mysore District APPELLANTAND:1. Karnataka Electricity Board,Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore-9,represented by its Secretary.2. The Superintending Engineer,Electrical, Mysore Circle,Mysore (KEB).3. The Executive Engineer (Ele),Rural Sub-Division,Karnataka Electricity Board,Mysore RESPONDENTSAPPELLANT HEREIN MOST RESPECTFULLYSUBMITS AS FOLLOWS:FACTS OF THE CASEThe appellant herein feels aggrieved by the rejection of the Writ Petition No. 9720/1982 by an order dated 11-1-90 made by a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Cour...

Shankaragouda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant62

ORDER1. Petitioner claims to be owner of survey No. 247 (A+B+E+F) of Munavalli village of Saundatti Taluk. District Belgaum. He has alleged that the second respondent-Mandal Panchayat is contemplating construction of a building on a portion of his land. Petitioner further alleges that Mandal Panchayat cannot do such thing and therefore must be restrained from doing so. Entire activity of the Mandal Panchayat is motivated by mala fides. Mandal Panchayat is even trying to alter number of the property. In that circumstance, it is just and proper that this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should issue a mandamus or a direction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from building upon the land owned by him.2. Ordinarily this Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226, will not interfere in matters which involve investigation of title. If petitioner is the owner and third parties are trying to encroach upon his land, only remedy available to him is to move the Civil Court having juris...

Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Minority Communities and Backward Cl ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR1456

ORDERBalakrishna, J 1. This Writ Petition is directed against Resolution No. 383 passed on 23-7-1984 by the Bangalore Development Authority ('the B.D.A.' for short) making a bulk allotment of an extent of 25 acres of land in Sy.Nos. 15 to 29, 31, 53 to 55 and 130 to respbndent-4 the Telecom Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Limited ('the Society' for short) and for quashing of letter dated 20-12-1984 addressed by the B.D.A. to the President of the Society calling upon the Society to remit the cost of the aforesaid 25 acres of land amounting to Rs. 31,25,000/- for taking further action in the matter of handing over the land in question to the Society.2. The petitioner has also sought for a Mandamus to the B.D.A. to notify the said 'lands for purpose of allotment to the public at large including the members of the class of persons falling within the purview of the petitioner Society and for disposal of the sites by allotment in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore Develo...

Kumarappa and Another Vs. B. Manjunath and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant73; ILR1990KAR2041; 1991(4)KarLJ619

1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance. Learned High Court Advocate is also directed to take notice and appear for respondent No. 3. As the appeal can be disposed of on a short ground, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 7-12-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 1605 of 1989. The appellants were respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the petitioners. Respondent No. 3 was the 1st respondent. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to the ranking assigned to them in the writ petition.3. In the writ petition the petitioners sought for a declaration that the entire proceeding culminating on 3-1-1989, Produced as Annexure 'D' is illegal and void and to quash the notice dated 14-12-1988 issued by the 2nd respondent -- Prescribed Officer for Election to the offices of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of Krishnanagar Mandal Pancha-yat, produc...

Lawrence Brito Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1990]67CompCas357(Kar)

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inter alia, on the ground that he has committed no offence punishable under section 9(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows : The petitioner is a civil contractor residing at Bajpe close to Mangalore city in Karnataka State. It suffices to say that he has a brother, admittedly, working in Dubai at Bank of Pakistan in the United Arab Emirates. On April 12, 1989, the Enforcement Director, Government of India, Southern Zone, Madras, the second respondent herein, and the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, South Zone, Madras, conducted a raid and search of the residential premises of the petitioner at Bajpe. They seized a sum of Rs. 1,69,350 found in the steel cupboard in his house as well as three letters written by the petitioner's brother to his father in Konakani l...

M. Radhakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR1542

ORDER, 1989 - Section 4 - Places of public resort to be known to Licensing Authority to maintain public order and enforce Police Act -Requirement to obtain Licence under Order not arbitrary or unjustified or violative of Fundamental Rights - Regulatory powers - Reasonable restrictions & sustainable. Section 4 requires the Commissioner, the Licensing Authority/to get the reports or certificates whenever necessary from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, the Health Officer, the Officer of the Electrical Inspectorate and the Fire Officer which are 'indicative that where public have free access to the place such places must be considered to be places that must be known to the Licensing Authority in order to maintain public order if and when it becomes necessary and also to enforce the law, that is, the Police Act. Viewed thus, the insistence by the Circle Inspector of Policeand the Sub Inspector of Police that the petitioners must take out licence under the order impugned cann...