Karnataka Court February 2003 Judgments
Mohammed Yousuf Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ554
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. This writ petition is by the defendant in O.S. No. 1926 of 1987 challenging the order passed by XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on an interlocutory application filed for production of documents.2. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rules 1 and 2, for production of certain documents as detailed in the said application was subsequently converted into an application under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the Court has no power to allow the defendant to produce the documents which were not produced along with the written statement. Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) reads as follows.-'A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit'.From the reading of this it is clear that the Court...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vasanthakumar Vs. Mohammed Ariff and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ126
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This house rent revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is by a purchaser of a tenanted property in respect of which the erstwhile landlord/owner had obtained an ex parte order of eviction against his tenant. The eviction order had been executed, possession taken and the property sold to the present revision petitioner who claims that he has been put in possession pursuant to the purchase of the property.2. The tenant who had suffered an ex parte eviction order, filed a miscellaneous case for setting aside the ex parte order on the premise that he had not been duly served and a fraud had been played upon him. The Court that had heard the matter, allowed the miscellaneous petition and set aside the eviction and the original petition was restored to file. The tenant later on filed Misc. No. 97 of 1997 for restitution of his possession under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the CPC. In the said miscellaneous petition, an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Herbals Ltd. Vs. Settlement Commission (it and Wt) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]261ITR681(KAR); [2003]261ITR681(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J. 1. These petitions are directed against the order of the Settlement Commission, dated November 30, 1998.2. The petitioner was incorporated on October 30, 1984, as a private limited company for manufacturing alkaloids based medicines for curing cancer and hypertension. The petitioner-company was converted into a public limited company on November 22, 1988. Out of the authorised capital of Rs. 15 crores, the petitioner issued shares to the tune of Rs. 3.30 crores to resident and nonresident Indians in November, 1992. The petitioner is the third largest producer of anti-cancer drugs in the world. The public issue was over subscribed by about 30 times and the petitioner garnered about Rs. 109 crores from the investors in the primary market. Consequently, the petitioner earned interest on the excess share application money in respect of public issue of Rs. 2,04,80,212. The petitioner claimed expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,50,79,666. The net surplus of Rs. 54,00,546 was tr...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Herbals Ltd. Vs. Settlement Commission and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Kar)536
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. These petitions are directed against the order of Settlement Commission, dt. 30th Nov., 1998.2. Petitioner was incorporated on 30th Nov., 1984, as a private limited company for manufacturing alkaloids based medicines for curing cancer, and hypertension. Petitioner-company was converted into public limited company on 22nd Nov., 1988. Out of the authorised capital of 15 crores, petitioner issued shares to the tune of Rs. 3.30 crores to the resident and non-resident Indians in November, 1992. Petitioner is the third largest producer of anti-cancer drug in the world. The public issue was oversubscribed by about 30 times and petitioner garnered about Rs. 109 crores from the investors in the primary market. Consequently petitioner earned interest on the excess share application money in respect of public issue of Rs. 2,04,80,212, Petitioner claimed expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,50,79,666. The net surplus of Rs. 54,00,546 was treated as capital reserve by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Natesh Vs. the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4923
Nayak, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th April 1999 in Writ Petition No. 28182 of 1998. The appellant herein filed the said Writ Petition calling in question the action of the Management of the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited, the first respondent herein, in promoting the respondents 2 to 5 herein as Assistant Directors on incharge basis with effect from 29.04.1989 and on regular basis with effect from 01.11.1989.2. The events that lead to the filing of the Writ Petition be noted briefly as under:The appellant-Writ Petitioner was appointed as TASK FORCE COMMANDER (TFC) on 30th July, 1984 on temporary basis. The respondents 2 to 5 were also similarly appointed to the post of the TFC on temporary basis by the first respondent management. Subsequently, the services of the writ petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 5 in the post of TFC were regularized with effect from 15.05.1987. Admittedly, among the writ petitioner and re...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Measurements and Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Technicom Systems (i) Pvt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas144(Kar)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Both the above miscellaneous first appeals are directed against the same judgment dated November 22, 2002, passed in A. C. No. 45 of 1999 on the file of the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No. 11). By the order under appeals, the court below has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for short 'the Act' and refused to grant a measure of interim protection under Section 9 of the Act and thereby vacating the order of injunction restraining the respondents from encashment of bank guarantee bearing Nos. 97/444 and 97/445.2. The case of the appellant is as follows :3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of telecom equipment. The first respondent and another company by the name of National Telecom of India Ltd. are engaged in a similar line of business. The appellant-company manufactures products which are indigenously developed by M/s. Measurements and Controls, a sister concern of ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed MohiuddIn Pasha Khadri and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1555
ORDERPatil, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15.3.1982 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. INA. JKH. 15/79-80. Further, they sought for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to transmit the application contained in Annexure-B to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore to be considered along with other applications.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.3. The land bearing Sy.No. 63 and 147 of Jakkanahalli village are Darga Inam lands granted for the purpose of Darga of the well known saint viz., HAZRATH SYED SHAH SADRUDDIN HUSSAINI MAKKAN situated at Nelamangala. The petitioners are the descendants of the said saint Hazrath Syed Shah Sadruddin Hussaini. They are the hereditary Sajjada Nasheen of the Darga and performing all the daily, weekly, monthly and annual services and duties of the Darga including the annual Gandn...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Vyankat Ghadge and anr. Vs. Chandrakant Ganpat Chadge and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1794
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs challenging the validity and the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27th June, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 406 of 1994 by the High Court of Bombay affirming the concurrent findings of the trial Court and that of the first appellate Court. In order to appreciate the contentions urged before us, it has become necessary to state the facts to the extent necessary for deciding the questions that arise for consideration. The family pedigree of the parties is as set out below:BALI------------------------------------------------------------------------------VYANKAT (DIED ON 8.2.1978 ANAND RAO DIED IN 1930WIDOW KRISHNABAI(Defendant No.2)DIED IN APRIL 1980 # ALLEGEDLY ADOPTED*DATTARAYA ON 10.6.78----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |(Peti. No.1 (Peti. No.2 (Res. No.1 Sarda Leelavai Bhagirithi(Plaintiff (Plaintiff (Defendant (Defendant (Defendant (DefendantNo.1 No.2...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Laxmana (Dead by His Lrs.) and ors. Vs. Govindappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant385; ILR2003KAR1985; 2003(6)KarLJ379
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 20/1981 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Tarikere, are in second appeal before this Court.2. The suit was one for declaration, partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The parties are related and the plaint averments were that they constituted members of a joint family. The suit had been resisted by the defendants setting up of a prior partition by way of defence. However, the Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the property by partition and separate possession of the same.3. The aggrieved defendants had appealed to the Court of Additional District Judge, at Chikkamagalore, in R.A.No. 42/1989. That appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.1999.4. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants had further appealed to this Court in R.S.A.No. 478/1999. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants in this appeal that...
Tag this Judgment!Kobra, Association of Borrowers of Karnataka and ors. Vs. State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC63; [2005]123CompCas269(Kar); 2003(3)KarLJ489; [2003]47SCL695(Kar)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3387 and 5570 to 5576 of 1998 feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 7th April, 1999 have preferred these writ appeals. Learned Single Judge by the impugned, order has dismissed the writ petitions.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions be noted briefly as under;The first appellant claims to be an Association of Borrowers from Financial Institutions in Karnataka (FIK). Second appellant is the President of the said Association. The appellants 3 to 9 are SSI units. They are borrowers from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short, 'KSFC'), fourth respondent herein. KSFC is a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'). KSFC receives offers from the State Government and also borrows money from several Financial Institutions like Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), Small Industries Development Bank of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »