Karnataka Court March 1999 Judgments

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Coffee Lands Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999]97CompCas380(Kar)

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. These petitions concern the proposed amalgamation of three companies by the name of Veerarajendra Estates Limited, Charagni Limited, Coffee Lands Limited with Consolidated Coffee Limited. The proposed scheme has been submitted to the court for approval or sanction and the reasons for the proposed amalgamation have also been set out. Broadly speaking, it was contended that the nature of the business activities carried on by the three transferor companies and the transferee-company are essentially similar and for the reasons set out in the proposed scheme, the contention is that the proposed amalgamation is in order to bring about a beneficial result by ultimately merging the business activities which would be mutually advantageous. The necessary notice had been issued and the Regional Director has raised certain objections which I shall deal with in the course of the order. There has been a contest of some consequence particularly with regard to one aspect of the cas...

P.S. Panduranga Rao Vs. Central Bank of India, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ699

ORDER1. Tell me when do I retire? Is it at the age of 58 years or 60 years is the issue posed by an officer of a nationalised Bank in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Brief facts are: Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk at the Vijayawada Branch by the respondent-Central Bank of India. After satisfactory completion of period of probation, he was confirmed in the post with effect from 1-7-1967. At the relevant point of time, the service conditions of the Award Staff in the Bank was governed by the Industrial Bipartite settlement. By virtue of the settlement, the age of retirement for clerical staff was 60 years.3. Personal inconvenience and father's serious illness necessitated petitioner to make a representation dated 28-10-1968, requesting the responsible officers of the respondent-Bank seeking transfer from Vijayawada Branch to any of the branches in Bangalore of the respondent-Bank. That request had been turned down by the respondents for valid reasons. Si...

Gurjar Power Engineer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Small Industries D ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2000Kant68

Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This revision petition arises under Section 115 of the CPC from the judgment and order dt. 31st March, 1998 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore deciding the issue No. 4 to the effect that whether the defendants prove that the Court fee paid is insufficient.2. The Court below after detailed consideration of the matter has opined that the case was one covered by Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. No doubt, an attempt was made by the defendant to avoid payment of Court fees. It found that the case could not be said to be covered by Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It further opined that substantial relief sought for was not a declaration of the right of the plaintiff, but a declaration that the proposed action to recover the amount from the defendants should be stopped and so it directed that the plaintiff has to pay the Court fee of Rs. 7,61,092/- and file a fresh valuation slip. 3...

Narayana Swamy Vs. Smt. Muniyamma (Dead) by L.Rs and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR1608; 1999(6)KarLJ261

ORDER1. The petitioner is a judgment-debtor. Respondents 1 and 2 are the decree-holders.2. The respondents 1 and 2 and their mother Muniyamma had filed a suit in O.S. No. 47 of 1960 in the Court of the II Munsiff, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, for specific performance of the agreement of reconveyance against the petitioner and the respondent 3 herein. The said suit was dismissed on 3-1-1967. Aggrieved by that respondents 1 and 2 filed R.A. No. 81 of 1967 and the said appeal was allowed. Thereafter, respondent 3 filed R.S.A. Nos. 993 of 1969 and 961 of 1969 which came to be dismissed on 23-1-1973. In the meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 had already filed execution case in Ex. C. No. 699 of 1970 seeking execution of the decree passed in RA No. 81 of 1967. After the Bangalore City Court Act came into force, the said execution petition came to be transferred and numbered as Execution No. 1528 of 1987.3. The decree-holders sought to execute the decree. The petitioner-judgment-debto...

Smt. Kalavati Alias Jayashree Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR2445; 1999(6)KarLJ136

ORDER1. This revision under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 by R-3 in appeal R.A. No. 115 of 1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikodi is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27-2-1990 in the said appeal.2. R-3 herein (in the revision) made an application under Section 45 read with Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Form No. VII before the Land Tribunal, Gokak claiming occupancy right in respect of the land admeasuring 21 acres and 37 cents of Dhupadal Village. Tribunal, by majority (Chairman of the Tribunal recorded the dissent), by order dated 10-5-1988 rejected the application. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, R-3 herein filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikodi in R.A. No. 115 of 1988. Appellate Authority, by order dated 27-2-1990 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 10-5-1988, granted occupancy right...

Sabari Trust and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999]239ITR763(KAR); [1999]239ITR763(Karn)

V.K. Singhal, J. 1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the appropriate authority of the Income-tax Department for pre-emptive purchase of the property in dispute.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Sabari Trust Ltd., are taken into consideration. Sabari Trust Ltd., is constituted under the Indian Trusts Act and owns land bearing Nos. 25 to 34 situated at Kolar Road (old Madras Road), Indiranagar, Bangalore-38. It entered into a development agreement with Srinivasa Builders on January 24, 1990, for development of the property by construction of multi-storied residential apartments. 35 per cent. of the super built area was to remain with the trust and Srinivasa Builders who were to construct and develop the property were entitled for 65 per cent. of the super built area in lieu of the cost of construction. The supplementary agreement dated January 25, 1990, was al...

Sunder Lodge Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR3580

V.K. Singhal, J. 1. Assessment order dated December 31, 1996 for the year 1993-94 has been assailed in this petition as it is violative of articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the provisions of Section 5(5)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 have not been properly interpreted.Section 5(5)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 reads as under :'(a) a dealer whose total turnover in any year is less than two lakhs rupees shall not be liable to pay tax for that year.(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a),--(i) every casual trader in any of the goods other than those specified in the Fifth Schedule shall be liable to pay tax at the rate specified in this Act on his taxable turnover of sales or purchases in each year whatever his total turnover during the year may be ;(ii) every hotelier or restaurateur, manufacturer, dealer in liquor and beer and dealer who brings any goods into the State or to whom any goods are despatched from any place o...

Sabari Trust and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.K. SIMGHAL, J.All these petitions are disposed by this common order since the controversy involved is common. Petitioners are aggrieved of the order passed by the Appropriate Authority of the IT Department for pre-emptive purchase of the property in dispute.2. For the sake of convenience, facts of M/s Sabari Trust Ltd. are taken into consideration. M/s Sabari Trust Ltd. is constituted under the Indian Trust Act and owns land bearing Nos. 25 to 34 situated at Kolar Road (Old Madras Road), Indiranagar, Bangalore 38. It entered into development agreement with M/s Srinivasa Builders on 24th Jan., 1990, for development of the property by construction of multistoried residential apartment. 35 per cent of the super built area was to remain with the trust, and M/s Srinivasa Builders who were to construct and develop the property were entitled for 65 per cent of the super built area in lieu of the cost of construction. The supplementary agreement dt. 25th Jan., 1990, was also entered int...

A. Sundara Raman Vs. New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ311

ORDER1. An employee has no right to promotion, but only has a right to be considered for the promotion is often quoted passage. This thinking equally applies to a selection post also. In the present case an employee of New Mangalore Port Trust complains his non-selection to the promotional post and griefs at the selection of second respondent to the promotional post. 2. Facts may briefly be noticed. They are as under: petitioner and eleven others were appointed as Assistant Traffic Managers by the New Mangalore Port Trust, Mangalore, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'Port Trust' vide their letters of appointment dated 23-4-1984. By a subsequent order dated, 5-7-1985, their services came to be regularised with effect from the date of their initial appointment to the post.3. The Port Trust has prepared and published the gradation list of Assistant Traffic Managers of its organisation. In that list petitioner was assigned ranking at Sl. No. 2 and the respondent 2 at Sl. ...

L.S. Seshadri Vs. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR2092; 1999(5)KarLJ370

ORDER1. A litigant today, is not interested in a learned or a ponderous judgment. He is not interested in what Miller said in his Data of Jurisprudence are the 'eligantia juris'. He is only interested whether he has won or lost. Let me tell him the result of this petition, in a few sentences.2. The truth is that every problem admits of only one right solution and it has to be winkled out of shell of irrelevancies. The relevant facts are, while working as an Administrative Manager (Incharge) in the Government Tool Room and Training Centre, hereinafter referred to as GTTC, he was served with a charge memo containing charges of misconduct as Administrative Manager during the period April 1994 to December 1995. The charge-sheeted officer had denied all the charges in the memo. The Enquiry Officer finds him guilty. Based on these findings, the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 30-8-1996, dismisses the petitioner from the services of respondent organization. After filing anunsuccessf...