Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments
M. Nagaraj Vs. the New Government Electric Factory, Bangalore and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ159
ORDER1. The petitioner herein wants a direction from this Court under writ jurisdiction to foist him on the respondent-Government Company as an employee on compassionate grounds, though the respondent-Company itself is struggling hard for its survival because of excess employment and is undergoing revival operation before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'the BIFR').2. According to the petitioner, his father was working as Lathe Turner in the respondent-Company. He died in harness on 23-11-1988. According to the petitioner, he made a representation seeking appointment on compassionate ground and the respondents have issued an endorsement dated 3-6-1991 (Annexure-A), wherein he was intimated that there have been no vacant posts for being afforded to petitioner keeping in view his qualification. Therefore, he cannot be favoured with any appointment. It was also informed that his claim has been included in the waiting list, since already similar 90 such appli...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ranga Ramu Vs. State by Rajajinagar Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)82; 1999CriLJ561; 1999(2)KarLJ420
ORDER1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned I ACCM, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of the offences and directing issue of process to this petitioner along with other accused persons. The petitioner is one of the accused persons in all these cases. Notice of these petitions was served on the learned S.P.P.2. Heard.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate and notary public and the Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process to this petitioner. He also further submitted that the FIR does not disclose any offence said to have been committed by ibis petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to this petitioner. In support of his argument, he also drew my attention to Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned S.P.P. fairly and rightly submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaranarayana Construction Co. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR902(KAR); [1999]239ITR902(Karn)
V. K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioners have claimed that by virtue of the amendment by the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1994, Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1994, the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, has been amended and registered partnership firms have been made as assessable units, but the partners who had unabsorbed loss prior to the commencement of the amendment Act have not been given the set off. It is submitted that either the unabsorbed loss of its partner prior to April 1, 1994, be directed to be set off or the provisions of Act No. 18 of 1994, making the registered partnership firm as assessable unit be declared unconstitutional. It is stated that between October 1, 1957, and March 31, 1987, registered firms were not assessed to tax but share of profits of each partner was assessed in his hands.2. Between April 1, 1987, to March 31, 1994, Section 19A was in force providing for assessment of registered firms and for levy of tax. The share of profits of the partn...
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Vijayakumar and Others Vs. the Allahabad Bank, Nehru Road Branch, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ490
ORDER1.This revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Act arises out of judgment and decree dated 9-11-1993 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, in suit No. 57 of 1993 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 17,430/-.2. The sole point that has been urged in the revision is that the Court below did not act according to law when it held the plaintiff's suit to be within limitation. Learned Counsel contended that prima facie suit had been filed much beyond the expiry of period of limitation. According to the plaintiff's case, 1st defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff-bank on 27-12-1978 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 13% with quarterly rests and executed pronote to that effect in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, first defendant had hypothecated stock-in-trade in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant had been irregular in repayment of the loan amount with interest. Plaintiff's case has been th...
Tag this Judgment!The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited, Bom ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)154; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)348; ILR2000KAR344; 1998(5)KarLJ693
ORDER1. The brief facts leading to these cases are that the respondent/complainant in all these cases lodged complaint before the learned Special Court for Economic Offences in Karnataka, at Bangalore, on the allegation that the petitioner-companies had violated certain provisions of law in not sending the share certificates duly transferred in his name, failed to send balance sheet and Memorandum of Articles, etc. and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 39(2), 219(4), 113(2) ofthe Companies Act (for short, 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences in all the cases and directed to issue summons to the petitioners herein. In some cases, the petitioners approached the Court and made applications under Section 245, Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused persons on the ground that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases as the registered offices of those companies are situated outside the Karnataka State. The learned Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!icici Ltd., Vs. H.V. Jayaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas425(Kar)
M.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. The brief facts leading to these cases are that the respondent/complainant in all these cases lodged complaints before the learned Special Court for Economic Offences in Karnataka, at Bangalore, on the allegation that the petitioner companies had violated certain provisions of law in not sending the share certificates duly transferred in his name, failed to send the balance-sheet and memorandum of articles, etc. and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 39(2), 113(2) and 219(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences in all the ca.ses and directed to issue summons to the petitioners herein. In some cases, the petitioners approached the court and made applications under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the accused persons on the ground that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases as the registered offices of those companies are situate...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Steels Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3961
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and is a proprietory concern of Basappa Bannappa Tumbagi. He is dealing in iron and steel including steel ingots, steel bars etc. The item sold by the petitioner are declared goods falling under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. Iron and Steel are taxable at single point i.e., the first point. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proviso to Explanation II appended to the 4th Schedule inserted by Act No. 5/96 is discriminatory. Discrimination is alleged in respect of dealing of goods which are manufactured by the new exempted unit and those manufactured by old unit or such new unit to which the benefit of deferment is given under Section 19-C of the Act.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Act which is a charging Section are reproduced hereunder:'(4) Notwithstanding anything...
Tag this Judgment!Times Publishing House Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Financial Times Limi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ422
ORDER1. This is a defendant's revision being aggrieved of the order passed on I.A. No. 17 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O. S. No. 7087 of 1993 rejecting the application.2. The brief facts are as follows:The plaintiff-Financial Times Limited, London (for short, 'London') filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-Times Publishing House Limited, Bangalore restraining them from printing, publishing or in any manner using in relation to any newspaper publication, magazine, periodicals or stationery bearing impugned trade mark Financial Times, for damages and for other costs and reliefs.3. Defendant 1 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement running to 41 pages. In the said suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for injunction restraining the defendants from publishing any such newspapers. The injunction was granted. As against the grant of order of injunction, the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Shivananda Vs. Bellulli Shivashankarappa Alias Gurusiddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ699
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner namely Sri P. Manjunath holding brief for Sri R. Gopal and Sri V.S. Biju holding brief for Sri Jagadeesh Mundargi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1992 whereby the learned Civil Judge while exercising the powers under Small Causes Courts Act, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 876.10 ps.3. Plaintiffs case was that the defendant had borrowed on 29-6-1991 a sum of Rs. 6,000/- with promise to return the sum within two or three days, but did not return the same. Instead, on 29-9-1991 he further borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and the defendant assured the plaintiff-revision petitioner that he will return Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 2% per month till the date of payment. The plaintiff has further alleged that on 9-11-1991, defendant-respondent had paid back a sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radhamma Vs. S.M. Chandrashekhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ404
ORDER1. Heard Ms. Kavitha holding brief for Sri A.K. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Sachindra Karanth, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The order challenged in this revision is dated 25-8-1993 directing steps to be taken for service of notice after transfer of the case to the Court of Additional Munsiff, Shimoga. Revision under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act lies from the decree or order made in the case decided by the Court of Small Causes, for High Court's satisfying itself as to whether the said decree or order was passed according to law. Initial condition for revision being maintained or revisional power being exercised is that there must be some order passed by the Court and that order should either amount to a decree or should amount to an order deciding the case. 'Order' expression means 'judgment which does not amount to a decree that which has the effect of deciding certain rights between the parties either involved in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »