Karnataka Court August 2002 Judgments
Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant30; ILR2002KAR4085
1. The legal issue involved herein is of great relevance for day-to-day functioning of our judicial system and the right of the Advocates to plead and argue the cases coming before the Courts. Because of certain controversy before the learned Single Judge as to whether an Advocate who has not filed vakalatnama for a party in a case can appear, plead and argue for him without presenting a memo of appearance and obtaining express permission from the Court in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter V of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 (in short, the 'HC Rules').2. The learned Single Judge by his impugned order has taken the view that 'when an Advocate who had filed vakalatnama engaged the services of another Advocate to plead and argue his clients' case has to obtain the permission of the Court as contemplated under Rule 3(1) and (2) of Chapter V of the HC Rules and unless and until such a permission had been obtained, he, as a matter of right cannot engage the services of another Advocate to ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Rasaranjan and anr. Vs. State by Ulsoorgate Police and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4451; 2002(5)KarLJ419
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petition is under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No. 248 of 2002, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC.2. The brief facts are as follows.--The respondent 2-M. Narayan Das filed a complaint against the petitioners-J. Rasaranjan, Smt. J. Mahishree and Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan alleging that he is the owner of the land in Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, situated in Ward No. 57 of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, totally measuring about 25,188 sq. ft. He learnt that some third parties are trying to get the khatha transferred in their names in the records of Mahanagara Palika. On enquiry, he learnt that his relatives by name J. Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree who have no manner of right, title and interest over the property filed appl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Bpl Group of Companies Karmikara Sangh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR886]; ILR2002KAR4330; 2002(6)KarLJ11; (2003)ILLJ131Kant
1. The State Government has preferred these intra-Court appeals against the order passed by the learned Single Judge (BPL Group of Companies Karmikara Sangha, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2000(1) Kar. L.J. 355 : ILR 1999 Kar. 3520) directing the State Government to pass orders granting interim reliefs to the members of the respondent-Workers Union under Section 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 tin short the 'Act'), in terms of the recommendations made by the Labour Commissioner and initially approved by the Minister in charge of Labour Department, by ignoring the order of the Chief Minister, who, on review of the entire facts and consulting all concerned, opined that in the facts of the case, instead of granting interim relief by the Government, this point as well be referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act.2. The basic facts to be taken note of are quite short. The members of the respondent-workers union are employed in 12 corporate b...
Tag this Judgment!Private Eye (P) Ltd. Vs. Hind High Vaccum Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant95; ILR2002KAR4875
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in both the petitions. 2. In CRP 819/2001 the petitioner-Company is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2000 passed by the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore trial Court in SC 16698/1999 whereby the learned Small Causes Judge dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23720/- from the defendant with interest at 24% from the date of suit till realisation. 3. In CRP 820/2001 the petitioner-Company is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2000 passed by the trial Court in SC 16699/1999 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,335/- from the defendant respondent with interest at 24% from the date of suit till realisation, has been dismissed.4. As the parties are common and...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagyavathi Vs. Madanlal D. Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC591; 2003(2)KarLJ620
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In this civil petition the wife is seeking transfer of M.C. No. 1001 of 1996 from the II Additional Family Court, Bangalore, to this High Court to try the same along with C.C.C. No. 18 of 2002. It is stated that since some of the exhibits have been removed and one of the exhibits is substituted, C.C.C. No. 18 of 2002 is filed and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, transfer of M.C. No. 1001 of 1996 is necessary to consider the said contempt case.3. The petitioner has no right to state that the transfer of the case is necessary to this Court and try the same along with the contempt case referred to supra is wholly untenable in law. The petitioner has not pleaded inconvenience or hardship or tenable ground seeking for transfer of the M.C. case to this Court and try the same along with criminal contempt case referred to supra. On this ground alone the civil petition is liable to be dismissed in limine...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Srinivas Vs. Golden Green Farms and Resorts (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas445a(Kar); ILR2002KAR4534
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. These O.S.As are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 19-6-2002 passed in Company Petition Nos. 263 of 1999, 169 to 172, 12, 37 and 38 of 2000.2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case properly. The respondent-company was unable to pay its debt even after service of notice and the learned Single Judge has erred in not ordering winding-up of the company and has not considered the case in Mitsugen Glazes Ltd. v. Varkey Overseas Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. I.L.R. 1999 Kar. 3354 in a proper way. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and winding up order has to be passed.3. Brief facts as alleged are :It is alleged that the respondent came forward with a scheme to develop and promote 699 classic farms providing various facilities in Sy. No. 14/1 of Kenchenahalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District. The total cost of one farm was Rs. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Srinivas Vs. Golden Green Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas661b(Kar)
N.K. Jain, C.J. 1. These O. S. A.s are filed against the common order of the learned single judge dated June 19, 2002, passed in Company Petitions Nos. 263 of 1999, 169, 170, 171, 172, 12, 37 and 38 of 2000.2. The grievance of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned single judge has not considered the case properly. The respondent-company was unable to pay its debt even after service of notice and the learned single judge has erred in not ordering winding up of the company and has not considered the case in Mitsugen Glazes Ltd. v. Varkey Overseas Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1999] ILR Karn 3354 ; [2001] 103 Comp Cas 117 in a proper way. Therefore the order of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside and winding up order has to be passed.The brief facts as alleged are :3. It is alleged that the respondent came forward with a scheme to develop and promote 699 classic farms providing various facilities in Sy. No. 14/1 of Kenchenahalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Distr...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. the Commissioner of Payments, Ministry of Text ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4633
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the State Bank of India, a commercial Banking company established under the State Bank of India Act, essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Payments functioning under the Sick Textiles Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the orders passed by the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, functioning as an Appellate Authority within the meaning of Section 23(7) of the Act. 2. The writ petitioner-Bank is common in both the petitions, though the petitions arise out of two different claim petitions which had been presented before the Commissioner as a claim under Section 20 of the Act in respect of two different sick textile undertakings. The Commissioner having entertained the claim in part and having disallowed a part of the claim in each of the claim applications, the petitioner was in ap...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Srinivas Vs. Golden Green Farms and Resorts Private Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ8
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. These original side appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 19-6-2002 passed in Company Petition Nos. 263 of 1999, 169 to 172, 12, 37 and 38 of 2000.2. The grievance of the learned Counsels for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case properly. The respondent-company was unable to pay its debt even after service of notice and the learned Single Judge has erred in not ordering winding up of the company and has not considered the case in M/s. Mitsugen Glazes Limited, Bangalore v. M/s. Varkey Overseas Trading Company Private Limited, Bangalore and Anr., 1999(3) Kar. L.J. 321 : ILR 1999 Kar. 3354 in a proper way. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and winding up order has to be passed.3. Brief facts as alleged are:It is alleged that the respondent came forward with a scheme to develop and promote 699 classic farms providing various facilities in Sy. No. 14/1 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Parashuram Yellappa Pote and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4954; 2003(2)KarLJ356
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides on merits in this review petition. The eight interlocutory applications are incidental because they really deal with aspects such as condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, bringing on record the legal representatives etc. The review petition itself seeks a revision of a common order passed by this Court on 11th February, 1999 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 21995 of 1990. That writ petition challenged an order of the Tribunal dated 2-9-1976. Effectively, the present writ petition seeks to reopen a litigation that had concluded with the Tribunal's order in the year 1976 and the solitary ground given is that the landowner had died shortly before that order was pronounced and technically the legal representatives had not been brought on record. When the writ petition was disposed of in the year 1999, the Court took into consideration certain aspects, the first of them being that the case had been decided on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »