Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1995]84CompCas602(Kar); ILR1992KAR2782; 1992(3)KarLJ604
Kedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The applicants have filed the above referred company petition for the winding up of the company on the ground that there is a deadlock in the affairs of the company and also on the ground that the total liability of the company far exceeds the assets. 2. The conspectus of the facts given in the petition are that the respondent-company is incorporated under the Companies Act known as Radeesh Rubber Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the petition that there is a deadlock in the company and that the total liability of the company far exceeds its assets. Respondent No. 2, one of the shareholders and a director of the company, filed an objection statement and contended, inter alia, therein that the allegations contained in the petition are not true, but nevertheless the fact that the company is not doing any business and that there are heavy bank liabilities, and the company suffered heavy loss have been admitted. Apart from that respondent No. 2 also filed a compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT(Cri)661; ILR1992KAR2607; 1992(3)KarLJ561
ORDERB.Jagannatha Hegde, J. 1. The petitioner in these three Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the Managing Partner of a Firm which runs factory at Mangalore. The respondent-Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, filed three complaints before the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore, alleging that the petitioner is punishable under Section 85(1)(a) of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act') for an offence under Section 40 of the Act on the ground that he has not paid the contribution required to be paid under the Act. Three complaints have been filed by the respondent for the alleged default committed by the petitioner for three different periods. 2. The Magistrate issued process and after the summons were served on the petitioner, he filed these Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the three proceedings initiated before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. It is his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERHakeem, J.1. The Petitioner has sought for quashing the Notifications dated 28.7.1984 and 30.6.1986, issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act (the 'Act').2. Certain extent of land in Sy. Nos. 60/1 and 62/1B in Ramadevanahalli was acquired for forming a Public Road. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 28.7.1984, stating the extent and the public purpose for which the land is required. It is not disputed that this Notification was also published in the locality. Thereafter, since there was no objection by the Petitioner, Final Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published. At that stage, the Petitioner seems to have filed his objection to the proposed acquisition, which came to be rejected.3. The main grounds on which the acquisition is challenged by the Petitioner are that the action of the authorities in acquiring his land is malafide, as it is done at the instance of some persons who are inimica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant51
ORDER1. The Petitioner has sought quashing the notifications dated 28-7-1984 and 30-6-1986, issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act (the 'Act').2. Certain extent of land in Sy. Nos. 60/1 and 62/1B in Ramadevanahalli was acquired for forming a Public Road. A notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 28-7-1984, stating the extent and the public purpose for which the land is required. It is not disputed that this notification was also published in the locality. Thereafter, since there was no objection by the Petitioner, final notification under S. 6 of the Act came to be published. At that stage, the Petitioner seems to have filed his objection to the proposed acquisition, which came to be rejected. 3. The main grounds on which the acquisition is challenged by the Petitioner are that the action of the authorities in acquiring his land is mala fide, as it is done at the instance of some persons who are inimically disposed towards h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2659
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 4th January, 1984, passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S.No. 44 of 1972. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,27,142-29 paise with future interest thereon at 10 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of the suit and also for creating a charge of the decretal amount on the plaint B-Schedule properties free from the claim or objections of defendants 13 and 16 to 18. The plaintiff also further prayed for expenses incurred by it in respect of the mortgage security and for fixation of a date by the Court for payment of the decretal amount by the defendants and further in default of payment of the said sum, interest, costs, charges and expenses by a date to be fixed for redemption, to sell the suit schedule properties to recover the amount and, in the event the sale proceeds are found to be inadequate to discharge the decretal liability, to recover the balance pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992(4)KarLJ700; (1993)IILLJ28Kant
1. It is well established principle of law that Courts shall not interfere with the orders pertaining to transfers of officials or officers unless it is shown that the transfers made are with mala fide intentions, as such transfers are administrative in nature and any such interference with the administrative orders of transfer would create confusion in matters of administration. Unmindful of the above position, the petitioners who are officers of the respondent, Vijaya Bank, have filed these petitions challenging the latest policy of the bank issued as at Annexure 'F' dated December 24, 1991, which is a circular relating to revised transfer policy for officer employees up to MMG Scale III of the bank and paragraph 11.4 reads as follows :'The central office-bearers of the registered trade union of officer employees recognised by the bank will be placed in the center where the head office of the bank is situate and they are exempted from transfers during their tenure as such. Further ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3416; 1992(3)KarLJ570; (1993)ILLJ587Kant
1. The petitioner is the daughter of a deceased employee of the Karnataka Electricity Board, which is the first respondent in this writ petition. Her mother who was working as a Sanitary Worker with the respondents died on March 7, 1989, while in service. 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is married but since her husband has been mentally deranged, she was depending upon her mother for her livelihood. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste as is evidenced by the certificate, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-C. The petitioner has three children. As stated above, the husband of the petitioner who was working as a coolie, in course of time became mentally deranged and left the house and his whereabouts are not known for the last eight to nine years. It is, in these circumstances, the petitioner sought employment on compassionate ground. On her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the second respondent has issued an endorsement dated March 21, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2799
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J. 1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common order dated 4-12-91 passed by the Court of the IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The short question that arises for consideration is that whether it is open for the claimants to execute the award passed in land acquisition proceedings against the moveables found in the Office of the Chief Secretary to Government? The trial Court has given detailed reasonings as to the circumstances which warranted the executing Court to issue warrant of attachment of moveables found in the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka.3. The Government Pleader submits that the impugned order suffers from the following legal infirmities:'That the award cannot be executed against the Chief Secretary, since Government is not a party either before the reference Court or before the Executing Court.'Further, the Government Pleader invited this Court's attention to the provisions of Sections 27, 28,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1995]83CompCas569(Kar); 1992(3)KarLJ557
R.V. Vasanthakumar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated February 18, 1992, in O.S.No. 572 of 1987, wherein the trial court has held the suit document that is sought to be produced by the plaintiff as documentary evidence as being admissible as a promissory note. The defendants have raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document in question on the ground that the document was insufficiently stamped in view of the specific recital in the document, namely, 'being value received'. 2. The contention is that a stamp of the value of twenty-five paise has to be affixed for a receipt and the requisite stamp of the value of twenty paise has to be affixed on the document in question as the value is Rs. 8,000. It is to be seen that a stamp of the value of 40 paise has been affixed on the suit document, as such, it is contended that the document is insufficiently stamped by five paise since the document sought to be produced partakes of the character of a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2794
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18-2-1992 in O.S.No. 572/87 wherein the trial Court has held that the suit document that is sought to be produced by the plaintiff as documentary evidence as being admissible as a promissory note. Defendants have raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document in question on the ground that the document as being insufficiently stamped in view of the specific recital in the document namely 'being value received'.2. The contention is that stamp of the value of twenty five paise has to be affixed for a receipt and requisite stamp of the value of twenty paise has to be affixed on the document in question as the value is Rs. 8,000/-. It is to be seen that stamp of the value of 40 paise has been affixed on the suit document, as such, it is contended that the document is insufficiently stamped by Five Paise since the document sought to be produced partakes the character of promissory note and a c...
Tag this Judgment!