Karnataka Court April 2006 Judgments

The Registrar of Companies Vs. Fair Growth Agencies Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas314(Kar); [2006]71SCL18(Kar)

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. These five revision petitions have been filed by the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka challenging the dismissal of his complaints against the respondent-company for contravention of certain provisions of the Companies Act, on the point of limitation.2. The respondent-company M/s. Fairgrowth Agencies Limited was incorporated on 25-10-1990. Suspecting its involvement in a security scam, books of accounts, other books and proceedings of the Company for the period from 11-1-1993 to 29-3-1993 were inspected by the Inspecting Officer of the Department of Company Affairs, Madras, during the end of March and the first part of April 1993. On the basis of his report, the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Southern Region, Madras, wrote to the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, bringing to the latter's notice, certain commissions and omissions on the part of the respondent company, in furtherance of which, complaints were filed by the revision petition n...

Hyderkhan Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3143; 2007(6)KarLJ637

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. This revision petition was dismissed for default by order dated 6-3-2006, LA. II/2006 has been filed for re-calling the said order. The reason assigned for the failure of the Counsel for the revision petitioner to appear on that day is non-receipt of cause list of 6-3-2006. Accepting the said explanation, J.A. II/2006 is allowed and recalling the order dated 6-3-2006, the revision petition is restored to file.2. This revision petition has been preferred challenging the conviction of the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and consequent sentence awarded by the Learned JMFC, II Court, Belgaum, in order dated 12-6-2001 in C.C. No. 458/2000. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2001 having been dismissed by the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, dated 17-3-2003, this revision petition has been preferred.3. On 20-4-2000 at 00.30 hours, truck bearing No. MYL 4586 of whi...

H.S. Chetan (Since Deceased by His Lrs. Leelavathi @ Leelamma W/O. K. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008ACJ191; 2007(6)KarLJ381; 2007(4)AIRKarR192; AIR2007NOC1642(DB).

Jawad Rahim, J.1. MFA No. 10166/05 is an appeal by the Insurer and MFA 11578/05 is by the claimants challenging the Judgment and Award of Addl. MACT, Tumkur in MVC 974/2000 dated 7.10.2005. While the Insurer seeks to negate the liability fastened upon it to discharge the award, the claimants have sought for enhancement being not satisfied with the grant.2. These appeals had come up for admission and at the request of both sides It has been taken up for disposal on merits.3. We shall, during the course of Judgment refer to the parties according to the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of brevity and better appreciation of the grounds urged by them. In that, the appellant in MFA 11578/05 shall be referred to as claimants and the appellant In MFA 10166/05 shall be referred to as appellant - insurer.4. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award as also the grounds of the appeal Indicate that, young boy named Chetan Kumar who was at the verge of completion of law degree studying in T...

Leelavathi @ Leelamma and anr. Vs. Chandra Mouli and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2338; ILR2007(2)Kar2338; 2007(4)KCCRSN217(DB)

Jawad Rahim, J.1. MFA10166/05 is an appeal by the Insurer and MFA 11578/05 is by the claimant challenging the Judgment and Award of Addl. MACT, Tumkur in MVC 974/2000 dated 7.10.2005. While the Insurer seeks to negate the liability fastened upon it to discharge the award, the claimants have sought for enhancement being not satisfied with the grant.2. These appeals had come up for admission and at the request of both sides it has been taken up for disposal on merits.3. We shall, during the course of Judgment refer to the parties according to the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of brevity and better appreciation of the grounds urged by them. In that, the appellant in MFA 11578/05 shall be referred to as claimants and the appellant in MFA 10166/05 shall be referred to as appellant insurer.4. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award as also the grounds of the appeal indicate that, young boy named Chetan Kumar who was at the verge of completion of law degree studying in Tumkur an...

B. Krishna Reddy S/O Bankadarayappa Vs. B.K. Somashekara Reddy S/O Kri ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)BC388; ILR2006KAR3111; 2006(5)KarLJ318

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant-complainant prosecuted the accused for offence Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.2. The accused towards payment of credit purchase issued Ex.Pl a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Upon presentation, cheque is dishonoured. Statutory notice is issued and complaint is filed. It is the contention of the defence, that cheque Ex.Pl is a materially altered by the complainant. The cheque was issued in respect of SBI account bearing No. 4948. PW1 admits that since the said account was closed, he altered the account number to 7383 in Ex.P1 and presented to the bank for encashment. The bank as per Ex.P2 returned the cheque with an acknowledgement 'referred to the drawer'. PW1 clearly admits he has altered the bank account number of the cheque. Section 87 of the N.I.Act declares that 'any material alteration of negotiable instrument renders the same void as against any one who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it w...

The Registrar of Companies in Karnataka Vs. Fairgrowth Agencies Limite ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. These five revision petitions have been filed by the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka challenging the dismissal of his complaints against the respondent-Company for contravention of certain provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, on the point of limitation.2. The respondent-Company, M/s. Fairgrowth Agencies Limited, was incorporated on 25-10-1990. Suspecting its involvement in a security scam, books of accounts, other books and proceedings of the Company for the period from 11-1-1993 to 29-3-1993 were inspected by the Inspecting Officer of the Department of Company Affairs, Madras, during the end of March and the first part of April 1993. On the basis of his report, the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Southern Region, Madras, wrote to the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, bringing to the letter's notice certain commissions and omissions on the part of the respondent-Company, in furtherance of which, complaints were filed by the revision pet...

K.V. Sreenivasa Murthy Son of Late K. Venkatasubbaiah, Revenue Inspect ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)KCCRSN250; 2008(6)AIRKarR7(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is against the order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 7762/2005. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal quashed the order No. RD/152/BS1/2005 dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-'A.2') passed by the Government of Karnataka transferring and posting Sri K.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, F.D.A., Magadi (petitioner herein) working within the limits of Bangalore Urban District, as Revenue Inspector at Vijayapura Hobli in Devanahalli Taluk, in the place of Sri. C. Munishamaiah (Respondent No. 1 herein). The Tribunal also quashed Annexure-'A.3' Order No. EST (1) CR 15/05-06 dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, implementing Annexure-'A.2' Government Order. Application No. 7762/2005 was filed by Sri. C. Munishamaiah, first respondent herein.2. The background of the case requires to be stated. The first respondent was posted as Revenue Inspector at Vijayapur...

State of Karnataka Vs. Mohammed Sadiq S/O Mohammed Dastagir

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3391

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The accused is acquitted of an offence punishable Under Section 333 The case of the prosecution discloses that on 15-6-1998 at 6:45 p.m. the accused was driving the auto on the M.G. Road, jumped the signal line. P.W.2 the duty police constable gave a vigil to accused to stop his auto. The accused instead drove the auto suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, tried to escape the consequence of law. P.W.1-the Police Inspector chased the auto the accused. P.W.2 got into auto of P.W.8 and chased the auto of the accused. The auto of the accused is intercepted near Kamraj road by P.W.1. The accused denied the commission of any traffic offence, further, furiously hit P.W.2 on his chest as a result, the three ribs on the left side are fractured. The police and the people apprehended the accused, he was taken to the police station. P.W.1 lodged complaint. P.W.2 is sent to the hospital for treatment. The medical record discloses the fracture of three ribs on the left side....

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amco Batteries

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)617; ILR2006KAR3750; [2006]287ITR80(KAR); [2006]287ITR80(Karn)

N. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue the following two question of Law are referred for our opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 30,000/- paid for issue of shares is allowable as a business expenditure? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Tribunal was right in holding that ESI contribution of Rs. 4,50,000/- is not to a fund and it does not come under Section 43B(b)? 2. The facts leading to the reference are as under:The assessment year involved is 1984-85. The assessee is an employer. The assessing officer allowed an expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- incurred by the assessee in respect of issue of shares on the ground that it was a capital expenditure. Secondly, a provision made in a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards ESI contribution was also given...

Sunil B. Masur S/O Late Balakrishna Masur Vs. Railway Recruitment Boar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1023; 2007(4)KarLJ52; 2007(2)KCCR1479; 2007(3)AIRKarR172(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant was selected by the Railway Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of Apprentice Mechanic (Mechanical) and his name was recommended to the Konkan Railway Administration by the Railway. Recruitment Board. This fact was communicated to the appellant as per Annexure-B letter dated 22.5.1995 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board. In Annexure-B, it was also stated that an offer of appointment would be issued to the appellant in due course by the appointing authority, provided he was otherwise suitable. However, it was also stated in Annexure-B that qualifying in the interview does not confer on the candidate any claim for appointment which is subject to their being found suitable by the Administration in all respects. The appellant was also requested to contact the Chief Personnel Manager, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, in all future correspondence. Since, no offer of appointment was received from the Konkan Railway Administration,...