Karnataka Court January 2001 Judgments
Workmen of Lokashikshana Trust, Bangalore Vs. Lokashikshana Trust and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant212; 2001(3)KarLJ367
R. Gururajan, J.1. Appellant/plaintiff is a trade union representing the workmen of Lokashikshana Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'). They have filed a suit in O.S. No. 2802 of 1999 questioning the continuation of one Sri K. Shama Rao in service even after superannuation. They have also questioned the mismanagement and unfair practices adopted by the respondents 1 and 2. Plaintiff/appellant states that this Court in its order dated 21-1-1999 passed in W.P. No. 7188 of 1998 and its order dated 30-10-1998 passed in R.F.A. No. 331 of 1999 granted permission to the plaintiff to institute the present suit. The Lokashikshana Trust is a public charitable institution and the second defendant is its managing editor. Defendants 4 to 8 are its present trustees. The Trust is running newspaper called Samyukta Karnataka, weekly magazine called Kar-maveera, and monthly journal called Kasturi. The employees of the Trust are covered under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. The age o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C.R. Bhansali Vs. K. Ramesh and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]44CLA69(Kar); [2001]104CompCas732(Kar); ILR2001KAR734; 2001(4)KarLJ254
ORDERK.R. Prasad Rao, J.The petitioner who is the accused 2 in C.C. No. 337 of 1997 filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. seeking for quashing the above proceedings registered against him by the impugned order passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore City.2. 1st respondent herein filed a complaint in the Trial Court alleging that petitioner herein who is the Chairman and Director of the CRB Capital Markets Limited situated at New Delhi, failed to return the shares sent by him with the endorsement of transfer in his name within two months as required under the provisions of Section 113 of the Companies Act (for short, the 'Act').3. Learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and thereafter ordered for registering the case against the petitioner for the above said offences and for issue of process to him. It is the said order which is now challenged in the present proceedings.4. 1st respondent herein appearing in person before th...
Tag this Judgment!Synopsys (Singapore) Private Limited, Singapore Vs. Gps Usha Private L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ348
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 173 of 1999 disposing of the said company petition filed by the appellant under Section 434 read with Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 with the following observations:'In my opinion, since the respondent-company has not acknowledged the debts due to the petitioner-company, it is clear that there is a serious dispute with regard to the payment and nonpayment of the amounts due. In my opinion, a winding up petition is not a proper mode of enforcing a bona fide disputed debt. Petitioner-company is well-advised to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of all its grievances'2. The appellant contends that it is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and the respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant claims to have sold and supplied equipment of the value of US Dollars 67...
Tag this Judgment!Srikanta Datta Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant373
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondent-Government in taking over the management and maintenance of Palace Muzrai Temples under G.O. R.D. 54-MLI-72 dated 28-9-1974 under Section 7 of the erstwhile Mysore Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1927 (in short called Act of 1927) by vesting the management in a Committee constituted in the impugned order has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government order Annexure 'A' dated 28-9-1974 and subsequent orders of renewals and further issuance of a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to hand over the physical possession of all the Palace Muzrai Temples and also the management records, jewellary etc., of these temples situate in and around Palace, and, also at Chamundi Hills, forthwith to the petitioner for the maintenance and management and further to declare that the petitioner is the shebait of these Palace ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Basha and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1813
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides.2. The six petitioners herein were the six respective accused, who had been tried in the Court of the Additional Civil Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga in C.C. No. 422/1991 for the offence Under Section 411, I.P.C. and for the offence Under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 ('the Act of 1963' in short) and are convicted of both these offences and each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years on the count of Section 411 I.P.C.; and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence Under Section 87 of the Act of 1963. When the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th Nov. 1992 was challenged before the Lower Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 90 and 91/1992, the same came to be confirmed by its judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Ananda and Another Vs. M.C. Chikkanna and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant139; 2001(4)KarLJ203
1. This civil revision petition arises from the order dated 9-3-1998 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore, in O.S. No. 82 of 1995 on LA. No. 6 rejecting the same moved by the plaintiffs (revision petitioners herein) under Order 16, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the Court to examine defendant 3 as witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in the said case.2. The Court below rejected the said application on the ground that the witness mentioned in I.A. No. 6 is none else that defendant 3 in the suit and the plaintiffs have no right to examine defendant 3 as their witness.3. Sri M.V. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that Order 16, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, contemplates that a party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned and there is no bar to examine the defend...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Nagegowda Vs. D.C. Thammanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant349; ILR2001KAR1278; 2001(6)KarLJ296
ORDERThe Court 1. Heard Mr. Ashok B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok B. Hinchigeri, learned Counsel for the respondent 1 and the learned Government Advocate.2. In this Election Petition No. 20 of 1999, the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to delete respondents 7 to 9. Respondent 7 is the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka. Respondent 8 is the District Election Officer, Mandya District, Respondent 9 is the Returning Officer.3. The petitioner called in question the election of the 1st respondent to the 103-Kirugavalu Constituency of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The petitioner questioned the election of the 1st respondent among other grounds, on the ground of improper receipt of votes and improper rejection of votes. The petitioner also alleged irregularities in counting process and in the matter of declaration of results.4. Respondents 7, 8 and 9 filed I.A. No. II under Sections 82 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Limited, Head Office, Kodialabail and anr. Vs. B. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1430; ILR2001KAR1657; 2002(1)KarLJ316
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the accused on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore in C.C. No. 232 of 1998 against the order dated 15-5-1998 passed by the learned Magistrate registering the case and ordering for issue of process against them on a receipt of a complaint dated 10-11-1997 filed by the respondent and on recording his sworn statement on 15-5-1998.2. The respondent-complainant filed a private complaint in the Court below for the offences under Sections 39(2), 219(4), 217(2)(a) and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') alleging that he is a shareholder in the 1st petitioner-company and that by a letter dated 5-5-1997, he requested the 1st petitioner for supply of.-'(a) entries pertaining to his shares available in the share register; (b) copy of memorandum or articles of association with up-to-date amendment; and (c) balance-sheet including profit and loss account and connected papers to be encl...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasa and ors. Vs. Sri. K. Srinivasulu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant497
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed from the order dated 17th of October, 2000, whereby the trial Court dismissed LA. No. 30, filed by the revision petitioner for permission to let out the premises in the name of the firm of which dissolution has taken place.2. The trial Court observed:Though defendant No. 16, is represented by a lawyer, he has not filed any memo stating that he has vacated the petition premises and has received the amount due to him or has paid the amount due by him to the 1st defendant. Plaintiffs are disputing the fact that, defendant No. 16, has vacated the petition schedule premises at one breath and also alleged that, defendant No. 16, has been evicted illegally by 1st defendant.The truthfulness or otherwise of the assertions of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 6 will come to light only after recording of evidence on behalf of both the parties. The 1st defendant-firm is a dissolved firm, according to plaintiffs. At this stage...
Tag this Judgment!Nadeem Pasha Vs. P.C. Chandrashekar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ837
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the insufficiency of compensation as against the claim of Rs. 2,40,000 in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident on 8.5.1989 at about 1.30 p.m. between a lorry bearing No. MYA 7173 and cycle. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are as follows:(1) L.W. nearly 2' x 4' x 1' extending from knee joint (Lt) to (Lt) big toe, with skin loss.(2) Fracture both bones in lower V3rd (Rt) side.(3) Lacerated wound over the (Rt.) knee joint about 4' x 3' x V4.2. Heard the appellant. Service on the respondent No. 1 held to be sufficient.3. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, by consent, the MFA itself is taken up for final disposal.4. The court below has chosen to grant Rs. 25,000 for shock, pain and treatment relying upon the dictum in Basavaraj v. Shekhar 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka). It was a case of a young man of 24 years and he was inpatient for 17 days and he had fractures sustained in similar fashion. There was a commin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »