Karnataka Court August 2003 Judgments
Radhika Video Centre and ors. Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ354
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. Since no rule has been issued, I issue rule in all these matters since the same have been taken up for final disposal.2. In filing the first set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 24881 to 24883 of 2000 and the second set of writ petition in W.P. No. 33946 of 2000, the petitioners had prayed for direction to the District Magistrates, Tumkur, Udupi, Shimoga and Chitradurga to permit the petitioners to install Laser Disc, Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a Player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their respective video theatres for the purpose of exhibition of cinematograph shows to the viewers, whereas in filing the third set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 22431 and 22432 of 1997, the petitioners had prayed for issue of writ mandamus directing the respondent 2-Licensing Authority to permit the petitioners to install Laser Disc and a Laser Player or Video Compact Disc and a player or Video Digital Disc and a Player in their respective video theatres. Bef...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant480; 2003(5)KarLJ291
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. This reference has been placed before this Full Bench as per the order of the Chief Justice, dated 7-7-2003, and has come up before us to day.2. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10-3-2003, while considering the validity of the circular dated 24-2-1999 found that the question is directly covered by the decision in K.V. Vishwanath and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., W.P. No. 28225 of 1999 (PIL), DD: 29-11-2000 and whether it requires reconsideration for non-consideration of another Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Katappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., ILK 2001 Kar. 2363 (DB) and as such referred the matter to the Full Bench, as stated.3. The necessary facts are:The Chairmen of Doddahale Halli Panchayat, Gollahalli Panchayat and Kodihalli Panchayat comprised in Uyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, have filed this public interest litigation writ petition for quashing of Annexure-A, circular bearing No....
Tag this Judgment!Flora International Limited and anr. Vs. the Registrar of Companies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3745
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 876/2001. They have prayed for quashing the proceedings in the above case pending on the file of the Spl. Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore. 2. Complaint was filed by the respondent on 30.8.2001 alleging offences punishable under Section 162 of Companies Act, 1956, against four Directors of Petitioners' Company for non-laying of Annual Return of the Company in the prescribed form for the year ending 31st March, 2000 before the Annual General Body Meeting of the Company which ought to have been held on or before 30.9.2000 as required under Section 159 of Companies Act. Cognizance of the offence is taken by the Court below. 3. Respondent has filed statement of objection to the Criminal Petition. Heard both the advocates. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners' Company had called for the Annual General Body Meeting on 30th September, 2000 i.e. within...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanthamma @ Kadiramma and ors. Vs. Chikkanasarappa Since Deceased ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3714
ORDERSreedhar Rao, J. 1. The registered notice issued to R-2 is returned un-served with a shara that 'party was not present'. The provisions of Order 5 Rule 15 provides that 'when the party is not present, service could be effected on the adult member of the family' and it would be a valid service in law. 2. The process staff of the Courts perhaps may be aware of this Rule and comply the Rule when the party is not available for personal service they would effect the service on the available adult member of the family. However, when the notice sent by registered post, a postman who is not well versed with the provisions of the Code invariably returns the post with a shara 'party not present or not available' for want of instruction to the postman to serve on the adult member of the family if the party-addressee is not available for service. Therefore, necessary instructions to the postman about the compliance of the rule is to be noted on the envelopes with a clear instruction that the ...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Principal Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3789
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. This reference has been placed before this Full Bench as per the order of the Chief Justice, dated 7.7.2003, and has come up before us today. 2. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.3.2003,while considering the validity of the Circular dated 24.2.1999 found that the question is directly covered by the decision in W.P. No. 28225/1999 (K.V. VISHWANATH AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, W.P. NO. 28225/1999 dd 29.11.2000 and whether it requires reconsideration for non-consideration of another Division Bench decision of this Court in M. KATAPPA AND OTHERS vs STATE AND OTHERS, ILR 2001 KAR 2363 and as such referred the matter to the Full Bench, as stated. 3. The necessary facts are:The Chairmen of Doddahale Halli Panchayat, Gollahalli Panchayat and Kodihalli Panchayat comprised in Uyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, have filed this Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition for quashing of Annexure -A, circular bearing No...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radhabai Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant293
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner claims to be a purchaser of Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of Kannadagal village in Yellapur Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, having purchased the same from one Duming Pavin Siddi for a consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/- by a sale deed dated 30-1-1975. It is claimed that the petitioner is growing Paddy, Coconut and other crops in his land. It is also claimed that forest land abutting this agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 32-A had been sanctioned as the strip land to Sy. No. 15/2 by the Government in the year 1952, for the beneficial enjoyment of the agricultural land. Petitioner claims that she was also enjoying the strip land by planting fruit bearing trees such as Jackfruit, Mango, Cashewnut and other fruit yielding trees. The petitioner has also pleaded that the forest officials had made an attempt to plant forest trees in the strip land and the petitioner objected to it and prevented the same. The petitioner also claims that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›