Karnataka Court September 2005 Judgments

Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs. Micro Labs Limited

Court: Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of temporary injunction restraining it and their agents from manufacturing and marketing the medicinal product under the name of 'ATVAS' which is held to be identical to the respondent-plaintiffs mark 'AVAS', pending disposal of the suit.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.The appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceutical products.The appellant had developed a formulation used for treatment of cardiac problems. The same was named 'ATVAS'. According to the appellant this is a short form of the generic drug 'ATORVASTATIN'. The name ATVAS has been coined by the appellant and has been used from inception. In this regard the appellant claims to have called upon its agent, M/s. IND-Swift Limited, through whom the appellant was getting the product 'ATVAS' manufactured to obtain necessary licence...

Hanmanth Vs. the Land Tribunal Joida (Supa) and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5189; 2006(4)KarLJ121

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.1989 in Appeal No. DAAA/AD/32/89 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Joida (supa), in proceedings No. LRM/SR/47 Joida dated 22.2.1989.2. Petitioner claiming to be a tenant in respect of Sy. Nos. 27, 28; 29 and 30 measuring 6 acres 7 guntas, 2 acres 4 guntas, 0.35 guntas and 0.36 guntas situated at Pradhani Village, Hobli Supa, Sirsi Taluk, filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 3.7.1975. The land tribunal has granted the occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the land tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein has filed the writ petition before this Court. This Court passed an order, remitting back the matter to the tribunal, directing the land tribunal to pass appropriate orders afresh after affording opportunity to...

Sage Enterprises Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Developmental Board (Ki ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5985; 2006(5)KarLJ123

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is a Partnership firm. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') allotted 9992 sq.mtrs in Plot No. 1 (A) in Sy. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of Veerasandra Industrial Area for establishing a factory. Lease-cum-Sale agreement as per Annexure- A dated 25-6-1983 was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of 11 years commencing from 25-2-1983. Possession Certificate as per Annexure-B dated 26/28-2-1983 was also issued. Clause 2(n) (ii) of the agreement reads as under:'(n). To use the demised premises only for the purpose of Porclain, L.T. Insulators, Sanitary wares and polishing of granite stones and light fabric factory/industry and not to use the demised premises or any part thereof for any other purpose nor for the purpose of any factory which may be obnoxious, or offensive by reason of emission of odour, liquid, 'fluvia' dust, smoke gas noise, vibrations or fire hazards.(ii) To commence the civil...

Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs. Mohan Hirachand Shaha and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant227

1. The plaintiff-Bank has come up in this appeal aggrieved by a portion of the judgment dt. 1-4-1997 and the decree passed therein by the Court of Civil Judge and Asst. Sessions Judge, Athani in O. S. No. 252/1993. The parties herein would be referred as per the ranks they had in the trial Court.2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-Bank had given financial assistance of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the defendants 1 to 3; the defendants 4 and 5 are the sureties. When the defendants committed default in the payment of the loan and the interest accumulated thereon, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,73,634.74.3. The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the plaintiff-bank by filing their written statement. The defendants 3 to 5 remained ex parte. The trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and answered them in favour of the plaintiff to a great extent. The trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount ...

Geetha Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)7VST560(Karn)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The writ petition was on behalf of a firm, a registered dealer, which has since been dissolved, represented by its former partner, praying for issue of directions to direct the first respondent-assessing authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for reassessment/ incentive on purchase of groundnuts, groundnut seeds, etc., in the passing of the assessment orders for the assessment years 1979-80,1980-81,1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The prayer is to direct the authorities to reopen these assessment orders, apply the law as has developed subsequently and extend such concession or benefits that the petitioner may become entitled to. On such reassessment, applying the law as it stood then, particularly in terms of the law as has been laid down by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Trading Company and connected matters, disposed of on April 4, 1979. Petitioner has also sought further directions as contained in the order of this Court dated March 11, 199...

M. Narasappa (Deceased) by L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Land Tribunal and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 29 8-1989 in No. ALRAA 74 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority and also the order dated 5-8-1981 in No. LRM: 1813:74-75 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, have presented this revision petition.2. One Sri Dodda Beerappa, deceased father of the second respondent had filed Form 7 in the prescribed form as per the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 on 12-12-1975 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 342/5 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas and Sy. No. 342/4 measuring 32 guntas, situate at Nakundi Village, Chintamani Taluk, stating that, he is cultivating the said lands as tenant and occupancy rights may be registered in his favour. The said Form 7 filed by the father of the second respondent is available in page No. 12 of the original records. The said Form 7 had come up for consideration before the first respondent-Land Tribunal on 5-8-1981 in Proceedi...

Tippanna Vs. Jalal Sab and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant1; ILR2005KAR6011; 2005(6)KarLJ100

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the second plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree; passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yadgir, in R.A. No. 69 of 1997, dated 7-3-2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahapur in O.S. No. 1.26 of 1989, dated 30-8-1997 and dismissing the suit of the second plaintiff2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.--Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit O.S. No. 26 of 1988 later numbered as O.S. No 126 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yadgir seeking for a judgment and decree declaring that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule land and for possession of the suit schedule property by dispossessing the defendants and for mesne profits and costs.3. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff 1 is the absolute owner in possession of the land shown in th...

Musthan Bee Vs. H. Amir Pasha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4619; ILR2005KAR5213; 2006(6)KarLJ440

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner being accused No. 1 in C.C. No.5/2005 (P.C.No. 18/04) pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) & JMFC, Hospet, has sought for quashing the proceedings. The trail Court has issued process against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 193 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.2. The complaint discloses that the accused has given a false affidavit before the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat and got her name mutated to the exclusion of the complainant. On coming to know of the said fact, the private complaint is lodged, alleging the aforesaid offences.3. The principle contention raised by the petitioner is that the Court should not have taken cognizance of the offence except on the complaint in writing by the authority concerned. According to the petitioner, as the offence is committed before the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat, the said officer should lodge the complaint. In other words, the Court should not have take...

Suryakant Narasingsa Jadi Vs. Yallappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR997; 2006(6)KarLJ451

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the second mortgagee of the suit properties being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli in R.A.No. 98/2000.2. The suit properties are, a country tiled North-East shop premise measuring about 55 'xl2' with a backyard of 10 'xl2' out of 220 sq. yards of C.T.S.No. 1132/A, Ward No. 3 of Anchatgeri Oni, Hubli and another is a country tiled southern side premise measuring about 65'xl4' out of 220 sq. yards in the same survey number as noted above. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the above suit properties and on 28.8.1961 the father of the plaintiffs by name Ambasa Yallappa Pujari had mortgaged item No. 1 in a favour of husband of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 for Rs. 7,000/- for a period of 7 years. Thereafter, the plaintiffs along with their father have received another sum of Rs. 23,000/- and have executed a registered mortgage deed on 23.5.1973 in favour of...

B.N. Kamalanabha Reddy Vs. Munivenkatappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR222

ORDER 6 RULE 17 - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - Whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the Code - HELD - A reading of Section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended Code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. Therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.Petition rejected....