Karnataka Court August 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gopal Ahuja Vs. Sanman Distributors Private Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3275; 1994(1)KarLJ142
ORDERShivappa, J.1. Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit O.S. 10513/93. The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed that suit against the petitioners and 5 others for declaration that they cannot project themselves as Directors of the plaintiff-Company and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 either by themselves or through their agents, officials, workmen etc. representing themselves as Directors of the Company and not to interfere with the affairs of the plaintiff Company. The plaintiff filed I.As.l & II under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. The learned Judge ordered summons to defendants 1 to 7 and restrained defendants from interfering with the management and affairs of the plaintiff-Company and representing or acting as Directors of the Company till the disposal of I.As. I & II. It is this ex parte order of temporary injunction that is under challenge in this Petition.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitio...
Pavi Electrical Industries Vs. B.D.K. Alloy Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3412; 1993(3)KarLJ306
ORDERJagannatha Hegde, J.1. The petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3860/1989 is respondent-1 and the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3887/1989 is respondent-2 in Arbitration Case No. 3/1978 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli.2. The Arbitrator filed an award before the Civil Judge. Respondent-1 filed an application before the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act with an application I.A.No. VII for condoning the delay in filing the said application on 17.9.1984. A similar application in I.A.No. V was filed by respondent-2 along with an application for setting aside the award on the same day. The trial Court dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 25.3.1989 on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply and that respondents-1 and 2 had knowledge of the filing of the award on 30.6.1984 and 7.7.1984 respectively.3. The learned Counsel for the Revision petitioners rightly conten...
Laxminarayana Rao, Mangalore Vs. Janardhana Shettigara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant105; ILR1993KAR3204; 1994(1)KarLJ45
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th February, 1992 in R.A. 195 of 1990, on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge at Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22nd October, 1990, in O.S. No. 1162 of 1990.2. When this second appeal came up for admission, as it was found that the appeal involved substantial questions of law, by consent of the Advocates appearing for both sides, this second appeal has been treated as admitted and arguments have been heard on the said questions of law.3. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, may briefly be stated, as hereunder :The respondent was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit shop premises and the appellant was the landlord of the said premises. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. 542 of 1988, on the file of the Munsiff, mangalore for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent on the ground that the tenancy had been...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Registrar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3472; 1993(3)KarLJ390
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner, (Ashok Kumar), obtained 97 marks in the first paper in Botany, Zoology and Chemistry and 194 marks in paper-II. Paper-l represented the first year marks and Paper-It represented the first year marks in 10 + 2 course in Andhra Pradesh. 97 marks in the relevant subjects is out of 230, and 194 marks is out of 360 during the second year. He joined B.A.M.S. course in the Ayurvedic Medical College, Bidar, Now he has been held to be ineligible by the University of Gulbarga on the ground that the minimum marks of 50% should be obtained by taking marks obtained in both the years as in Andhra Pradesh Board, because as per the Regulations of the Andhra Pradesh Board both the marks are to be taken into consideration for eligibility. It is explained by Sri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that even the Board at Andhra Pradesh was considering the marks of both the years only for the purpose of awarding ranks and not for the purpose of continui...
Ajit Kumar Iddya Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas197(Kar); ILR1993KAR3135; 1994(1)KarLJ91
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is a chartered accountant. He was a partner of a firm at Shimoga. A complaint was lodged against him before the first respondent by the original second respondent. The original third respondent is a company which had appointed the second respondent as its auditor. The petitioner is questioning the reference of the complaint by the Council to its Disciplinary Committee after expressing that the Council was prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct. 2. The notice issued to the second respondent has not come back. Neither the papers sent, the envelop nor the acknowledgement returned. In the circumstances, in view of Order 5, rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, it can be assumed that notice on the original second respondent was sufficient. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has given up respondents Nos. 2 and 3 so that the writ petition could be disposed of early and in view of the ...
Nandi Dall Industries Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3148; 1993(3)KarLJ199
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. When can it be said that an industrial unit is 'set up' to attract the beneficial provisions of the Government order dated November 28, 1989, which grants a subsidy at 25 per cent. of the value of fixed assets, is the question to be considered in this writ petition. 2. Relevant part of the order reads as follows : 'Government are pleased to provide the following special package of incentives to Bidar District as envisaged earlier : (a) In lieu of Central investment subsidy withdrawn from October 1, 1988 the State investment subsidy at 25 per cent. of the value of fixed assets limited to a ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs per unit be offered to all new units set up on or after October 1, 1988 for a period up to March 31, 1993. (b) In lieu of the development loan since withdrawn, the ceiling on sales tax exemption offered to medium and large scale industry is enhanced from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 100 lakhs. (c) All existing and new industries are exempted from power cut...
Vijayakumar Shankarayya Sardar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2586
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner purchased land comprised in R.S.No. 78/2 of Dombargop measuring about 10 acres 03 guntas on 7.4.1982. The Assistant Commissioner made an order on 5.4.1991 holding that the transaction in question is hit by the provisions of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for short) as the income of the petitioner is more than Rs. 12,000/- from non-agricultural sources. The correctness of the said order is called in question. The petitioner is also calling in question the constitutional validity of Sections 79A, 79-B and 79-C of the Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Section 79 of the Act as stood originally, was introduced into the Act by Act 1 of 1974 and read as follows:-'79(1) On and from the commencement of the Amendment Act, no person who or a family or a joint family which has an assured annual income of not less than rupees twelve thousand from sources other than agricultural lands shall be...
Fathimabi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2712; 1993(3)KarLJ387
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. According to the petitioners they are the residents of Bangalore and they own the sites in question. They further assert that they have put up buildings on the sites and they have been residing therein. The buildings were constructed prior to 31st March, 1990 is their contention.2. The petitioners also assert that the B.D.A. had not acquired the property at the time when the buildings were put up and that under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991 ('the Act' for short) they are entitled for regularisation. The petitioners also assert that they have made appropriate application under the Act.3. The respondents seems to contend that the properties in question belong to the B.D.A. and the constructions were entirely unauthorised and that the constructions were not put up in such a way so as to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the regularisation of the constructions.4. There should be some compe...
T.B. Guddalli Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant66; ILR1993KAR2367; 1993(3)KarLJ180
ORDERS. B. Majmudar, C. J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (Chief Justice under NDVBJ), by its order dated 12-7-1993, in Writ Appeal No. 1509 of 1993, has referred the following question for decision of the Full Bench under S. 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 :'Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Rangaiah v. Managing Director, Tumkur Co-operative Market Producers Societies Union Ltd., reported in II.R 1992 Kant 3784, is correct when it takes the view that as per sub-sec. (4) of S. 28A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the term of elected President of the Cooperative Society is for the duration of the co-operative year?'Accordingly, this Full Bench was constituted for deciding the said referred question.2. We have heard the learned Advocatefor the appellant in Writ Appeal, who has contended that the referred question be answered in the negative. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, w...
M/S. Sri Radhakrishna Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. the Karnataka Electri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant204; ILR1993KAR2706; 1993(3)KarLJ382
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of the petitioner-Factory, who consumes electricity for its industrial activity. He is aggrieved by the claim made by the respondents for Rs. 91,985/- being the interest on belated payment of Additional Security Deposits, for the years 1989-90; 1991 and 1992. According to the petitioner, the consumer is not liable to pay any interest on the belated payment of Additional Security Deposits. 2. Regulation 31.02 framed by the Karnataka Electricity Board provides for the Additional Security Deposit (ASD for short). It says that:--'After the installation is serviced, if the deposit held falls short of three times thehighest bill amount during any single month during January to October of the calendar year, the difference shall become payable by the consumer as additional security deposit, within 30 days from the date of notice.'The note excludes certain amounts from consideration and it is unnecessary to be referred here. The security deposit and the ASD s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »