Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005]126CompCas801(Kar); ILR2003KAR4193; 2004(1)KarLJ487; [2004]50SCL372(Kar)
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This O.S.A. is filed against the order of the learned Company Judge, dated 3.6.2002, passed in Company Application No. 563/ 2001 arising out of Co. A. 1289/2000 in Company Petition No. 8/ 1974.2. It is stated that the appellant - respondent was designated as Official Liquidator attached to the High Court. Pending Company petitions, the matter was transferred vide order dated 11.4.2000 passed in C.A. 1289/2000 in Co. P. 8/1974 and respondent No. 1 became the Official Liquidator under Section 448(1)(b) of the Companies Act to work as Official Receiver in Civil Courts and to take possession of the records. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the Applicant - Respondent is that despite expiry of the term and the appointment of M. Ramachandra Reddy as Official Receiver of Bangalore District, still the learned Single Judge has extended H. Puttaswamy's term invoking Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules ( in short the Rules) to continue with the work entrusted to him vide or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : IV(2004)BC497; [2004]118CompCas661(Kar); [2004]56SCL92(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner is a limited company owning a factory manufacturing steel and the second petitioner is the managing director of the first petitioner-company. The writ petition is presented complaining about the orders passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the second respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in respect of the reference made by the petitioner-company under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioners complain that the proposal placed before the Board in the form of reference by the board of directors of the first petitioner-company has not received due consideration at the hands of the Board and their appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority also met with the same fate and as such the petitioners are before this court seeking for quashing of these orders as also for quashing the show-cause notice dated February 2, 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4395
Saldanha J.1. We have heard the learned Addl.SPP both on IA-I/03 as also on merits of the case, as these two aspects are interconnected. In view of the grounds set out in IA-I/03, delay is condoned and IA-I/ 03 is allowed.2. Coming to the merits, we need to prefix this order with certain very broad and definite guidelines to the Investigating Authorities, as it has come to our notice that virtually case after case of the prosecution, in respect of every single dacoity offence, has failed for want of reliable evidence. We, therefore, insist that the Director General of Police shall ensure that every Investigating Authority in the State and the Director of Prosecutions, shall also ensure that every Prosecutor in the State, takes serious cognizance of the guidelines that are issued herein below;a) That invariably in case of dacoity because of the fact that the incident takes place either at night or on a highway or under circumstances, whereby the victims are either attacked or threatened...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3695; [2004]135STC213(Kar)
ORDERGururajan, J.1. The petitioner, Unique Creations (B'lore) Ltd., is seeking for various prayers. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Sales Tax Act. It is a manufacture of readymade garments and it is 100% Export Oriented Unit. The State Government announced its Industrial Policy for a period of five years in terms of the Policy bearing G.O. No. CI 30 SPC 96 dated 15.3.1996. The G.O. in Annexure II, paragraph 10, offered Special Concessions for Exports applicable to 100% Export Oriented Units with export effort of a minimum of 25% of the value of total turnover. Entry tax exemption was offered in the case of 100% EOUs. It was implemented in terms of a notification dated 15.11.1996. The Industrial Policy is dated 15.3.1996. The same was implemented by way of a Notification dated 15.11.1996 in terms of Section 11-A of KTEG Act. As equivalent of entry tax exemption offered to 100% EOUs in the Industrial Policy G.O. dated 15.3.1996, the Notification dated 15.11.1996 stipulat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3667
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 6 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1A of Bogadi village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said land was proposed for acquisition along with other lands for the formation of Bogadi extension by issuing a notification dated 25.06.1987 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'), This was followed by a final notification dated 25.06.1988 issued under Section 19(1) of the Act. Thereafter, an award was passed on 11.01.1989, but possession was not taken immediately after passing of the award. The petitioner has no grievance so far as the acquisition is concerned in view of his own letter written by him to the 2nd respondent-Development Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings only because there is an unreasonable delay in taking possession for the purpose of implementing the scheme. In the case on hand, the award was passed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ26
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 6 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1A of Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said land was proposed for acquisition along with other lands for the formation of Bogadi extension by issuing a notification dated 25-6-1987 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'). This was followed by a final notification dated 25-6-1988 issued under Section 19(1) of the Act. Thereafter, an award was passed on 11-1-1989, but possession was not taken immediately after passing of the award. The petitioner has no grievance so far as the acquisition is concerned in view of his own letter written by him to the 2nd respondent-Development Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings only because there is an unreasonable delay in taking possession for the purpose of implementing the scheme. In the case on hand, the award was passed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ211
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J. 1. The 1st respondent-Annaiappa (since deceased by legal representatives) had filed O.S. No. 99 of 1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gubbi, against one Udedakalappa and Kalappa for a declaration that they are the owners of the deity 'Kalikanteswara' and also are the Archaks of the said temple and for permanent injunction. During the hearing of the said suit, the revision petitioners herein made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as defendants. They contended in the application that they and the plaintiffs in the suit were originally residents of Madhugiri and they jointly constructed the temple in question and installed the deity 'Kalikanteswara' and the four branches of the plaintiffs and the applicants were worshipping by rotation. Therefore, they are the co-owners of the temple entitled to worship as owners along with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no exclusive right either over ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3437
ORDERRangavittalachar, J.1. The 1st respondent-Annaiappa (since deceased by legal representatives) had filed O.S. No. 99/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gubbi, against one Udedakalappa and Kalappa for a declaration that they are the owners of the deity 'Kalikanteswara' and also are the Archaks of the said temple and for permanent injunction. During the hearing of the said suit, the Revision Petitioners herein made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as Defendants. They contended in the application that they and the plaintiffs in the suit were originally residents of Madhugiri and they jointly constructed the temple in question and installed the deity 'Kalikanteswara' and the four branches of the plaintiffs and the applicants were worshipping by rotation. Therefore, they are the co-owners of the temple entitled to worship as owners along with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no exclusive right either over the temple or as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]264ITR285(KAR); [2003]264ITR285(Karn)
R. Gururajan J. 1. The petitioners in these petitions are challenging the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, the facts in both these cases are the same or similar. 2. The petitioner in W. Ps. Nos. 32256-257 of 2000 owns coffee plantations in Kodagu District. He submitted his agricultural income-tax returns in terms of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Section 66 provides for composition of agricultural income-tax payable by the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner made application for composition and the same was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote letters claiming the benefit for the subsequent assessment years in the light of earlier permission. The respondents, however, directed the petitioner to file his returns for the assessment year 2000-01 in the light of an amendment in terms of the Act No. 5 of 2000. The petitioner is challenging the said endorsement in these petitions. 3. The petitioner in W. P No. 47091 of 2001 state th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2004)IILLJ91Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner was an officer of respondent-Syndicate Bank ('the Bank' for the short). For the alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by him while as an Officer of the respondent Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated December 21, 1998. The Articles of charge read as under.'ARTICLE OF CHARGE'That you were working as Manager of Sakleshpur Branch from June 23, 1988 to October 27, 1989 and prior to that as Asst. Manager at Avenue Road, Bangalore and while working in your position as such on April 28, 1988, you executed a written agreement dated April 28, 1988 for sale of the property mortgaged to the Bank agreeing to execute registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,27,750/- in, favour of Sri Sanjeeva Sapalinga and received from him Rs. 77,750/- on April 28, 1988 and Rs. 50,000/- on November 4, 1988 before obtaining permission from the Bank for selling the property and you failed to remit the sale proceeds towards the Housing Loan Account av...
Tag this Judgment!