Karnataka Court January 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nokia Siemens Network India Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Un ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas728(Kar); 2009(9)KarLJ8
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. The petitioner in this case is M/s. Nokia Siemens Network India Private Limited, a transferor company seeking sanction of amalgamation with M/s Nokia Siemens Networks Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as a transferee company) so as to make the same binding on all the share holders, secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor as well as the transferee company. Annexure-A is the proposed scheme of amalgamation.2. According to the petitioner company, it was incorporated on 17.12.1993 under the provisions of the Companies Act having its registered office at 10th floor Kaheja Towers 26/27, M.G. Road, Bangalore-1. The main objects of the transferor company as set out in Annexure-B is to design, develop, manufacture and trade in computer software such as software data products and allied hardware for telecommunication and other industries. The authorized share of the transferee company is Rs. 250,000,000/- divided into 25,000,000 equity shares of Rs. 10...
Sri Lakshminrayana Industries a Partnership Firm by Its Partner Sri Sr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AIRKarR385; 2009(4)KCCR2741; 2009(2)KLJ32; 2009(2)AIRKarR385; AIR2009Kar65
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Writ petitioner is the appellant. Questioning the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing W.P. 20360/2005, this appeal has been filed.2. The 1st respondent is a State Financial Corporation (the Corporation' for short), established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (the Act' for short). 2nd respondent is its Managing Director. 3rd respondent is the borrower industrial concern. The borrower committed default In repayment, on account of which, in exercise of the rights under Section 29 of the Act, the Corporation by drawing a mahajar, took possession of the Industrial concern on 28.10.2003. Since the loan liability was not discharged by the borrower even thereafter, the Corporation issued an advertisement on 18.2.2004 inviting bids from the intending buyers for sale of the seized asset - Industrial concern of the borrower. In response thereto, no offer was received. A second advertisement was taken out on 9.4.2004, in...
Chandrashekar Hanamappa Kulali Vs. Bhimappa Giriyappa Magi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(9)KarLJ92:2009(3)AIRKarR51:AIR2009NOC2195:2009(1)KCCR689
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff has come up with this second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 26-02-1994 passed by the principal Munsiff, Mudhol, in O.S. No. 195/1991, which has been confirmed by the learned Civil Judge [Sr Dn] at Jamakhandi in R.A. No. 40/1994 dated 06-10-2001.2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to in their rank assigned to them before the trial court.3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that; the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant before the trial court seeking for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale/Ex.P.1 and for other allied relief. It is the case of the plaintiff that, defendant is the owner of the suit plot No. 43 measuring 60' X 60', out of non agricultural land RS No. 554 of Mudhol and that he had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for Rs. 18,400/- and accordingly he entered into agreement of sale/Ex. P. 1, dated 09-04-1990...
Mysore Cements Limited Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas623(Kar); 2009(4)KarLJ388; [2010]97SCL290(Kar)
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This company petition has been filed by M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as transferee company) having its registered office in the State of Karnataka, seeking sanction of a scheme of amalgamation with two other companies.2. The petitioner which is a Transferee Company which is sought to be amalgamated with two other companies viz., M/s. Indorama Cement Ltd. (Transferor Company No. 1) and M/s. Heidelberg cement India Pvt. Ltd.. (Transferor Company No. 2). The scheme of amalgamation is annexed as Annexure-A to this petition.3. According to the petitioner, Transferor Company No. 1 has its registered office in the State of Maharashtra and has tiled a separate petition under Section 394 of the Companies Act before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Transferor Company No. 2 having its registered office in the State of Haryana, has filed a separate petition under the said section before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking approval...
Shanthappa S/O Basavaiah and ors. Vs. Channabasavaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1525; 2009(2)KarLJ644:ILR2009(2)Kar1524:2009(2)KCCR893:2009(3)AIRKarR130:AIR2009NOC2146:
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellants/ plaintiffs have come up with this second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 01-03-2002 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge [Sr Dn] and CJM at Tumkur in RA Nos. 13 and 18 of 1991 and judgment and decree dated 13-12-1990 passed by the Civil Judge [Jr Dn] Gubbin in O.S. No. 60/1982.2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to in their rank assigned to them before the trial court.3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that; the plaintiff has filed the suit against defendants before the trial court for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties consisting of 19 items. It is the case of plaintiff that one Shankarappa had three sons namely, Lingappa, Gangaiah and Channabasavaiah; that the said Shankarappa died leaving behind the said three sons to succeed to his estate; that Lingappa 1st son died leaving behind 2nd and 3rd defendants; that 2nd son Gangaia...
Boramma W/O Marigowda Vs. Srinivasa S/O Siddegowda,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ385:2009(1)KCCR670:2009(2)AIRKarR552
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellant/defendant No. 1 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 07-02-1998 passed by the Prl Civil Judge [Jr Dn], Mandya, which has been confirmed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Mandya in R.A. No. 28/ 1998 dated 07-03-2002.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranking before the trial Court.3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs who are the son and mother, have filed suit before trial Court against defendants seeking for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit property bearing Sy No. 29, measuring 21 guntas situated at Kyathangere village of Mandya taluk. It is the case of plaintiffs that first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as absolute owner; that second defendant got changed katha and RTC in favour of plaintiffs during the year 1981-82 and since then they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit...
Albert Mascrenhas Since Dead by L.Rs. [Nelly Albert Mascrenhas Major, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ17:2009(1)KCCR832:2009(3)AIRKarR173:AIR2009NOC2196
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellants/defendants have come up with this second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 05-02-1997 passed by the Addl.Munsiff at Virajpet, in O.S. No. 238/1993, which has been confirmed by the learned Civil Judge [Sr Dn], Virajpet in R.A. No. 10/1997 dated 19-09-2001.2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to in their rank assigned to them before the trial court.3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that; the plaintiff has filed the suit before trial court seeking for relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and for other allied reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 09-01-1975 the first defendant approached him by expressing his willing to sell the suit schedule property and he agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- and in pursuance of the same he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as advance for which a money receipt being passed and thereafter on ...
Mohd. Yunus and anr. Vs. Mahboob Bi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ72:2009(1)KCCR778:2009(3)AIRKarR160:AIR2009NOC2197
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellants/defendants 1 and 2 have come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 13-3-1995 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Bidar which has been confirmed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) in R.A. No. 26 of 1995, dated 19-3-2002.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranking before the Trial Court.3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before Trial Court against defendants seeking for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of suit house bearing Panchayat No. 1/63 situated at Kumbarvada Village, Bidar Taluk and District. According to plaintiffs, plaintiff 1 is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4, defendant 1 is the sister's son of plaintiff 1 and defendant 2 is the husband of defendant l's sister. According to plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit house; that the husband of plaintiff 1-late Abdul Khader and defendan...
Shivarudrappa Fakirappa UppIn Since (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors. Vs. th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ454:2009(4)AIRKarR223:AIR2009NOC2915:(D.B).
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. As common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants in W.A. No. 1433 of 2007 are the respondents 2(a) to 2(d) in W.P. No. 8657 of 2007. The appellants in W.A. No. 1434 of 2007 are the respondents 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a) to 3(f) in W.P. No. 8517 of 2007. The common respondent 1 in these appeals is the petitioner in the writ petitions. The appellants are aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petitions and quashing the impugned orders passed by the Executing Court and remanding the matter to the Executing Court for fresh consideration.3. The undisputed facts are as under:Certain lands owned by the appellants situated in Lakkammanahalli, Dharwad, were acquired as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the benefit of Karnataka Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 8-5-1989 determine...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR301(KAR); [2009]315ITR301(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants.2. Heard on admission. Records perused.3. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated September 7, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B', in Appeal I.T.A. No. 1106/Bang/ 06 for the assessment year 2003-04.4. The appellants had approached the Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the interest income brought to tax amounting to Rs. 22,55,82,940. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a nodal agency and is not carrying on any business of its own. It is only an implementing agency. The money received from the bank and interest accrued thereon is parked with the assessee for implementation of the scheme entrusted to it. It is not carrying on business activities of its own and every rupee received by it is accounted for.5. An identical question had come up f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »