Karnataka Court April 2007 Judgments

Dilip Bafna S/O Sri Mohanlal Bafna Vs. K.S. Vasudeva S/O Sri K. Subba ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3158; 2007(6)KarLJ554; 2007(3)KCCR1813; 2007(5)AIRKarR236; AIR2007NOC2433

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act' for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.2. The case of this petitioner is that the respondent is the owner of the Sites bearing Nos. 228 and 228A located at 8th cross, SBM Housing colony, formed out of lands in Sy.No. 12/1, 21/2, 21/3, 21/4, 21/5, 21/6, 22/2 and 15 situated at Gerehalli village, Bangalore North taluk, Bangalore, measuring in all 4014 sq.feet. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase the aforesaid sites on 25th March 2005, for a consideration of Rs. 53,00,000/-. The petitioner has paid Rs. 15,00,000/- as advance. Three months is stipulated for completion of the transaction. The petitioner is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. When the respondent did not perform his part of the contract, the petitioner ...

Bpl Limited, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. M. Jebakumar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)AIRKarR623;

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. These two writ petitioners are directed against the award dated 8.9.2006 in I.D.Nos. 130 to 166/2005 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.2. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4162/2007 is by the Management, party No. 2(a) before the Labour Court. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4163/2007 is another Management party No. 2(b) before the Labour Court. Petitioners will be referred to as BPL and Sanyo BPL for convenience.3. BPL is the company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in manufacturing of colour T.V. It had made an application before the Kerala High Court under Sections 351 to 354 of the Companies Act, inter alia seeking arrangement for restructuring of the company in application No. 84/2004. The Company Court allowed the said application by permitting the BPL to restructure its arrangement and in this regard the Kerala High Court by order dated 23.8.2005 approved a Scheme. In terms of the Scheme, BPL made negotiations wit...

Bpl Limited, Represented by Its. Vs. Mr. M. Shashikumar and ors

Court: Karnataka

1. These two writ petitioners are directed against the award dated 8.9.2006 in I.D.Nos. 130 to 166/2005 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.2. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4162/2007 is by the Management, party No. 2(a) before the Labour Court. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4163/2007 is another Management party No. 2(b) before the Labour Court. Petitioners will be referred to as BPL and Sanyo BPL for convenience.3. BPL is the company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in manufacturing of colour T.V. It had made an application before the Kerala High Court under Sections 351 to 354 of the Companies Act, inter alia seeking arrangement for restructuring of the company in application No. 84/2004. The Company Court allowed the said application by permitting the BPL to restructure its arrangement and in this regard the Kerala High Court by order dated 23.8.2005 approved a Scheme. In terms of the Scheme, BPL made negotiations with Sanyo BPL for transfe...

Dr. M. Venkataramanappa S/O Muniyappa Vs. the Chancellor, Bangalore Un ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ254; ILR2007(2)Kar2212; 2007(3)AIRKarR448

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter is posted for orders on I.A. for vacating stay, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both parties, the same is taken up for hearing and reserved and is disposed of as follows:Petitioner herein, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 30th August 2006 bearing No. GS 3 BUM. 2003 vide Annexure A, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents from proceeding with any enquiry under and in pursuance of the impugned Notification dated 30th August 2006 bearing No. GS 3 BUM. 2003 vide Annexure A, holding that, any such enquiry is without authority of law.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Petitioner herein hails from Kodiyanur P.O., Malur Taluk, Kolar District and has obtained his Masters Degree in Sociology and Rural Development during the years 1992 and 1995 respectively from the Bangalore University, Bangalore. ...

Smt. Prema Govinda W/O S. Govinda Raju Vs. Karnataka Small Scale Indus ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR705]; 2007(5)KarLJ490; (2008)ILLJ34Kant; ILR2007(2)KarSN28; 2007(5)AIRKarR343

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 1st July 2006 in I.D. No. 74/2001 passed by the I Additional Labour Court Bangalore.2. Petitioner claiming to be a workman raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia alleging that, she was appointed by the respondent Association in the year 1998 and she was assured payment, of Rs. 2,500/-plus other allowances per month and her service was confirmed on 24.5.1999. Thereafter on 5.3.2001 she was informed by the respondent that, her services are not required by it from 4.4.2001 on the ground of financial constrain. Refusal of work was challenged before the Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore. The main issue that was raised before the Labour Court was:Whether the workman is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act?The Labour Court on consideration of facts held that the respondent is not an industry and rejected the d...

Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Limited ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2245; 2009(2)KarLJ291; 200(3)KCCR1692; 2008(5)AIRKarR120; AIR2008NOC2774

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendant's Regular First Appeal.2. This appeal along with other six connected appeals were heard by this Court and by a common order dated 15.4.1999 they were allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree dated 15.4.1999 the aggrieved persons, preferred Special Leave Petition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the Supreme Court, the counsel for the parties agreed for setting aside the impugned judgment of this Court and remitting the appeals to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 15.4.1999 was set aside and the appeals were remitted back to this Court for fresh decision in accordance with law with a request to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. It is thereafter, this appeal is heard along with other six connected appeals. Though the parties are different, the question of law involved in all these ap...

Sathi Sundaresh S/O Somayya Member of Zilla Panchayath and ors. Vs. th ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ649; 2007(4)KLJ649; 2007(2)KCCR1458; 2007(4)AIRKarR134

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.2. By the impugned order dated 6.3.2007, passed in MAG.2/CR/53/06-07, the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Moodigere Taluk, has directed the police to detain the petitioners in custody from 6.3.2007 to 12.3.2007 and to produce them before him on 12.3.2007.3. The provisions of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. will have to be invoked by the Executive Magistrate only if he is of the opinion that there is every likelihood of breach of peace. The underlying object of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. is preventive and not penal. The section is designed to enable the Magistrate to take measures with a view to prevent commission of offences involving; breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. Wide powers have been conferred on the. Magistrates specified in this section and as the matter affects the liber...

Thilliammal, Vs. Thandavamurthy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR819; ILR2008(1)Kar819; 2008(2)KCCRSN88; 2007(6)AIRKarR397; AIR2008NOC190; 2008AIHC446(Kar)

N. Kumar, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs whose suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs is dismissed by the trial court after trial. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the trial court.2. The plaintiffs claim that, they are the owners of the properly bearing No. 51, 51A to K (old), New No, 131 situated at Veerapillay Street, Civil Station, Bangalore, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule properties'. They claim title to the said properties having inherited the same from Sri Gangadhara Mudaliar, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs-2 and 3. The said Sri Gangadhara Mudaliar died on 15.5.1970. In the plaint they have set out the genealogical tree. The said Gangadhara Mudaliar is the last male member of the family. He would be the Bandhu of Sri. Periaswamy.3. The specific case pleaded by the plaintiffs' is that the schedule property belongs to Sri Periaswamy. He died ...

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Represented HereIn by Its Joint Managing Dir ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)489; [2007]292ITR70(KAR); [2007]292ITR70(Karn)

R. Gururajan J.1. Appellant is before us raising the following questions of law;1. Whether the assessing officer is empowered to decide as to whether a receipt is on revenue or capital account while making an adjustment under Clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a)? 2. Whether the appellant's claim that the gain in exchange on export realisations constituted a capital receipt and as such not liable to income-tax having been fully supported by a direct ruling of the Calcutta High Court reported in : [1982]137ITR827(Cal) could still be said to be unsustainable to justify the respondent's action in treating it as a prima facie adjustment.3. Whether judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the respondent for justifying the action having been considered by the Calcutta High Court in the judgment referred above was not sufficient to render the issue a debatable one and as such take it outside the scope of prima facie adjustment within the meaning of Section 143(1)(a) of t...

Manu Properties Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Sri Raja Jaya ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2768; 2008(1)KarLJ117; 2007(4)KCCRSN234; 2007(4)AIRKarR647

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the auction notice dated 07.06.2002, Annexure-Q insofar as it relation to item No. 9 i.e., 370, 4th Block, Koramangala. According to the petitioner, the said auction is illegal and arbitrary.2. The proceedings have a chequered career. Few facts are necessary to be stated to appreciate the controversy in question.3. The site in question which is a corner site was publicly auctioned on 14.11.1988. The petitioner was the highest bidder and offered Rs. 2090 per sq. mtrs. aggregating to Rs. 8,46,817.20ps. It is the case of the petitioner that he deposited a sum of Rs. 2.12 lakhs towards 25% of the sale consideration. The balance of the sale consideration was required to be remitted within 45 days, i.e., by 30.12.1988. On 06.12.1988, when the petitioner was to deposit the balance of sale consideration, there was an advertisement in the Deccan Herald stated to have been issued by the Executive Engineer of Bangalore Development Authority...