Karnataka Court July 2000 Judgments
F.J. Heredia and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas273(Kar); ILR2001KAR1609
S.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. These three cases are consolidated for purposes of disposal by a common order.2. In Criminal Petition No. 258 of 1997, the petitioners who are accused in C. C. No. 1281 of 1988 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, seek to challenge the continuance of the proceedings against them as being contrary to the directions given in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1619 ; [1998] 94 Comp Cas 776. The case against the petitioners is that they are guilty of an offence under Sub-section (5) of Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956, for an alleged failure to hold the annual general body meeting latest by September 26, 1987, and to lay the balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the period in question. The offence is admittedly punishable with imprisonment for six months and/or fine of Rs. 1,000. The case against accused Nos. 1 to 4 was dismissed on account of the inability of the prosecution to secure t...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. Karnataka Electricity ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant30; 2001(2)KarLJ379
ORDER1. In this revision under Section 115 of the CPC petitioner-plaintiff has questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 13-7-1998 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 23 of 1997 interfering with the order of the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalore dated 10-4-1997 on Interlocutory Application No. II, in the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.2. Plaintiff is a company called Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers having its factory at Panambur, Mangalore. Defendant is the Karnataka Electricity Board engaged in regulating supply of power in the State of Karnataka. Plaintiff is a permanent customer of the defendant which consumes sufficient quantity of electrical energy during each month for the purpose of running the factory.3. Undisputed facts are:That the plaintiff approac...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.B. Deshpande Vs. C.R. Lokesh Reddy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: I(2002)ACC296; I(2002)ACC296; 2002ACJ296; ILR2001KAR574; 2001(4)KarLJ26
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.C. No. 1082 of 1989 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant/claimant in an accident that has taken place on 1-12-1988 at about 5-45 p.m. in Anandanagar at the junction of the 5th Main Road while appellant was the pillion rider in the scooter bearing No. CAX 8477, which was hit by a jeep bearing No. MYE 7575, resultant effect of which was the injuries sustained by the appellant.2. It appears that the appellant was a retired Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry and Soil Science in the University of Agricultural Sciences College, Hebbal. He has several academic distinctions and associated member of several important committees. It was his case that the driver of the jeep was negligent and the accident in questionhad occurred. He claimed Rs. 3,86,000/- as compensation for the injuriescaused to him.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Subbamma Vs. B.T. Krishnappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC41; ILR2000KAR3613; 2000(5)KarLJ83
ORDER1. Petitioner-Smt. Subbamma, w/o B.T. Krishnappa has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Family Court, in Ex. No. 3 of 1993 insofar as rejecting the claim of the petitioner.2. Petitioner is the wife of the first respondent-Sri B.T. Krishnappa. Second respondent is first respondent's close relative. The third respondent is the first respondent's sister. Marriage of the petitioner did not last long. She claims that first respondent deserted her. She had approached the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 529 of 1974 for recovery of maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- and for future maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month. She had also prayed for a declaration that the alienations made in favour of the second and third defendants by sale and gift respectively by the first defendant are nominal, collusive and fraudulent and in the alternative ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Nandita S. Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant21; ILR2000KAR2565; 2000(6)KarLJ197
ORDER1. The petitioner is a student and appeared for the Pre-University Course of the Department of Pre-University Education. Her subjects were English, Hindi, Psychology, Economics, Sociology and Logic. She appeared for the final examination held between 1-4-2000 and 17-4-2000. She obtained 78% marks i.e., 469 out of 600. Annexure-B is the mark list. She believes that she is eligible to secure at least 90% but that the marks awarded is low. She therefore desired revaluation of her answer papers. According to the petitioner the right of a student to have the answer script revalued is recognised by the Statute, but by framing subordinate legislation this right is taken away. She substantiates her contention by referring to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder (referred to as 'the Rules' hereinafter). In this behalf the following provisions of the Act may be noticed.2. Section 22(2) of the Act is the material Section. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ153
ORDER1. Sri Krishnappa, when he was alive, had filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia seeking a writ to quash the notice of demand/letter in No. AEE(E) W3:SA:2554-56, dated 24-2-1994 issued by Assistant Executive Engineer-second respondent herein. Alternatively, he was seeking a direction to the respondents to provide electricity supply to his premises, bearing No. 5, V Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore, by collecting only the deposit for new connection without pressurising the petitioner for payment of arrears of the third party.2. During the pendency of this petition, Sri Krishnappa expired without 'light' and now his wife Smt. Nagarathnamma has come on record with the permission of this Court. She is prosecuting this petition filed by her late husband. Now she wants to improve the case, therefore, she has filed an interlocutory application requesting this Court to permit her to amend the prayer in the petition to question the legality or otherwise of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Horticulture Producers' Co-operative Marketing and Processing Soci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ442
ORDER1. The Horticulture Producers' Co-operative Marketing and Processing Society, is a Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (petitioner-Society herein for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'HOPCOM'). The shareholders of the Society are mostly agriculturists and horticulturists. Apart from these persons, the State Government holds more than 90% of the shares in the petitioner-Society. The primary object of the Society seems to be, to supply fruits and vegetables through its retail outlets to its customers and alsoto establish processing units. The other incidental activity is to export fruits and vegetables to other countries outside the State. The Society carries on its business activity in a structure erected on an immovable property bearing Sy. No. 18, situate at Annipura Village, on the eastern side of Lalbagh Area, Bangalore, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 3 guntas of land. It claims and asserts that it is in possession and...
Tag this Judgment!Chikke Gowda and Another Vs. L. Govinde Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3955; 2001(1)KarLJ194
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-1-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Holenarasipur, while the evidence was being recorded in O.S. No. 94 of 1995. 2. The respondent has filed a suit for partition against the petitioners. The respondent and the petitioner 1 are the brothers. While the evidence was being recorded the palapatti (Memorandum of partition) was sought to be marked on the defendant-petitioners side, the lower Court rejected on the ground that it requires registration, as such it is inadmissible. 3. Mr. S.V. Narayana Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision in the case of Siromani v Hemkumar and Others, wherein it is stated as follows: 'Registration Act (1908), Section 17(l)(b) -- Applicability -- Document effecting partition of joint family properties and value of more than Rs. 100 by metes and bounds -- Registration compulsory -- In absence of such registration it is inadmissible to prove title of a...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Dulcine Emerenciana Rego Alias Pereira Vs. Lohithaksha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3923; 2001(2)KarLJ161
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. All these revision petitions were filed under Section 115 of the CPC to challenge the common order dated 26-7-1999 in Revision (Rent) Petition Nos. 111 and 112 of 1993 and 16 of 1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. In passing the said common order, the learned District Judge had set aside the common order of eviction dated 11-11-1993 in H.R.C. Nos. 128, 129 and 130 of 1991 passed by the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Man-galore and further dismissing the said eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein. 2. Before proceeding further, I feel it appropriate to narrate the history of litigation between the parties. For convenience, the parties henceforth are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. That, the petitioner-landlady in all leased four shops to four tenants by name, Gangadhar Bangera (respondent in H.R.C. No. 127 of 1991 in respect of shop Door No. 1015/3), Lohithaksha (...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Syamala and Others Vs. Smt. Devaki Gopal and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC513; 2001ACJ1432; ILR2001KAR306; 2001(4)KarLJ145
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th September, 1989, delivered by the Additional District Judge, II-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in Motor Accidental Claims Case No. MVC 348 of 1986, awarding in total sum of Rs. 3,43,000/-, as compensation.Claimants feeling aggrieved have come up before us by way of this appeal :2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 19-4-1986, one Alakananda Swamymath, alleged to be aged about 43 years at the time of death, who was the Principal of S.J.V.P. College, Harihar, and Secretary of Priyadarshini Education Society at Lakshmeswar, met with an accident and died thereon on the spot.Claimant's case is, due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry number bearing TNA 1749 and car bearing number MEU 5556, the deceased met with the accident and died on the spot at 2 a.m. According to the claimant's case, on account of death of Alakananda Swamymath, there was nobody to look after the fam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »