Karnataka Court July 1994 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.
Mukundlal Manchanda Vs. Prakash Roadlines Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1990
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.1. This Appeal is directed against order dated 1st of March, 1991 passed by the learned Company Judge (Shivaraj Patil, J) whereby Company Petition No.87/90 under Section 155 of the Companies Act seeking rectification of the Register of Members of the First Respondent has been dismissed. Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to briefly state a few facts relevant to the disposal of this Appeal.2. The Respondent-Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, on 26th June 1961. It became a deemed Public Company with effect from 15th June, 1988, and is engaged in business of carriage and distribution of merchandise in India and elsewhere by motor trucks etc.3. The Company has an authorised share capital of Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 50,000/- equity shares of Rs.100/- each. Out of the total authorised capital a sum of Rs.30 lakhs has been subscribed and fully paid. Appellant No. 1 on whose behalf this Appeal has already been dismissed as withdrawn was...
Dr. (Mrs.) Preeti G. Joshi Vs. National Institute of Mental Health and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2107; 1994(3)KarLJ571
Shivaprakash, J.1. In response to the advertisement dated 1.6.1989 inserted by the first respondent, copy of which is marked as Annexure-C, the petitioner applied to a non-medical post of a Lecturer in Biophysics, since designated as Assistant Professor in Biophysics, which is at item No. 14 in the said advertisement. As could be seen from the advertisement the candidates applying for the said post should possess the following qualifications :'Qualification: M.D. in Biophysics or a) First or Second Class in M.Sc., Degree in Physics (b) Ph.D/D/Sc., in Biophysics orequivalent from a recognised University/Institution for Non-medical.' 2. it is stated in the Petition that the petitioner had secured high Second Class, securing 59,3% marks, in M.Sc., Examination in physics. She also has Ph.D , in Physics. In addition to the Educational qualification, the applicants were required to have two years teaching/research/clinical experience in the discipline after obtaining Doctoral qualification. ...
Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2649; 1994(4)KarLJ22
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner has challenged the endorsement of the Chairman of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board dated 2-9-1993 (Annexure G) and has prayed that the same may be declared illegal, null and void and be quashed or set aside. The petitioner has further prayed that a Writ of Mandamus or Order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus be issued to Respondent No. 2 to issue appropriate permit or licence to the petitioner for taking new water connection in respect of the house constructed by her after getting the portion of the house in partition under partition decree dated 3-9-1988, a copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure 'A1'. The whole purpose of the petitioner appears to be that, as on account of partition, the whole house had been partitioned among the co-owners and on her portion, she has re-constructed the building and thereafter the petitioner applied for the new water connection being provided to her for...
M/S. Laxmi Marketing Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Electronics Devel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant180; ILR1994KAR2277
1. The plaintiff is theappel-lant. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from enforcing a Bank guarantee executed by, the 2nd defendant. Along with the suit, a temporary injunction application was also moved. This application was dismissed and the plaintiff has come up in appeal.2. The plaint allegations, in brief, arc as follows:The plaintiff -- a registered partnership firm -- was appointed as a dealer of the 1st defendant-company to sell T.V. series in Karnataka. Since the 1st defendant demanded bank guarantee, the bank, the 2nd defendant herein, executed an irrevocable bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant supplied 100 T.V. sets, out of which 90 were defective. The plaintiff had paid Rupees I,78,000/- but did not release the. balance since the 1st defendant did not rectify the defective T.V. sets. The plaintiff undertook to release the balance amount if the T.V. sets are set right. At t...
Laxmi Marketing Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Electronics Developmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas447a(Kar); 1994(3)KarLJ159
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from enforcing a bank guarantee executed by the second defendant. Along with the suit, a temporary injunction application was also moved. This application was dismissed and the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 2. The plaint allegations, in brief, are as follows : The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, was appointed as a dealer of the first defendant-company to sell television sets in Karnataka. Since the first defendant demanded bank guarantee, the bank, the second defendant herein, executed an irrevocable bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the first defendant supplied 100 television sets, out of which 90 were defective. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 1,78,000 but did not release the balance since the first defendant did not rectify the defective television sets. The plaintiff undertook to release the balance a...
Mohini K. Vs. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Manipal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2759; 1994(3)KarLJ175; (1995)ILLJ351Kant
ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. Should this Court interfere with an order of dismissal passed against an employee who has a remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, against such a dismissal, is the short question that arises in this petition. Before proceedings any further however, it is appropriate to briefly state the facts in the background. 2. The petitioner who was working as a Stenographer in the respondent-Bank was charged with certain misconduct in the discharged of her official duties which resulted in the holding of a domestic enquiry against her. The Inquiry Officer appointed for this purpose recorded the statements of the witnesses produced before him and finally submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Based on the said report the petitioner was dismissed from service, which order of dismissal was challenged by way of a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was however, dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not exhausted t...
Ningaiah Vs. Cauvery GramIn Bank, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2048; 1994(3)KarLJ140; (1995)IILLJ389Kant
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Manager of the Naganahalli Branch of the respondent-Bank. By an order dated 26.6.1991 passed by the Chairman of the Bank in his capacity as the disciplinary authority, he was placed under suspension, in contemplation of a domestic enquiry, into certain allegations of misconduct levelled against him. Sometime later in November, 1991, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, in which all told, 8 distinct charges were levelled against him, in regard to matters pertaining to Hoogia Branch while another 3 charges were levelled in regard to his functioning as Manager of Naganahalli (Mysore) Branch of the respondent-Bank. 2. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was found to be unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of an enquiry against him and the appointment of one Shri S. R. Ranganath, as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. 3. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry into the charges, dur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›