Karnataka Court April 2009 Judgments

M. Murthy @ Mark Murthy @ Nallonu S/O Munimothalaieh Vs. State by Deva ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. The petitioner accused No. 3 in SC No. 140 of 2008 on the file of the Fart Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking for bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is on 13.01.2008 the complainant was watching television in the evening at his residence, he was informed over mobile phone that his brother Muralikrishna was assaulted and died on the way to Columbia Asia Hospital. He lodged a complaint with the police on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. against six persons.3. During the course of the investigation, the present petitioner was arrested. After the investigation was over, charge-sheet was laid against accused-1 to 4 for the aforesaid offence and two other accused were dropped. The present petitioner and accused No. 3 moved the Sessions Court for bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 24.01.2009 rejected ...

Vinarom Private Limited Vs. Nil

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition filed under Sections 391 - 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act'), the petitioner-Vinarom Private Limited (transferee Company) has sought for sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement at Annexure-A by which Givaudan (India) Private Limited (first transferor Company) and Givaudan Flavours (India) Private Limited (second transferor Company) are proposed to be merged with the petitioner-Company.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka.3. The petitioner-Company was incorporated on 05.08.1985 with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore with the name 'Roure Aroma Private Limited'. After change of its name several times, its present name is 'Vinarom Private Limited' w.e.f. 31.05.2001. The petitioner-Company was incorporated to carry on the business of manufacture of perfumes and to buy, sell, import, export, manufacture, refine, distill, extract,...

Madhu Constructions Contractors Rep. by Its Proprietor Sri K.M. Mally ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The appellant herein is the defendant in OS.No.216/1999. The suit in question was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant and persons claiming under them to vacate from the suit 'A' schedule property and as so to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 13,500/- as damages for use and occupation of the suit W schedule property. The plaintiffs have also prayed for mesne profits. The trial Court by its judgment dated 1.2.2003 has dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs were therefore, before the lower appellate Court in RA. No.97/2003. The lower appellate Court after. re-appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the trial Court was not justified and as such, the lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to not only vacate the suit schedule premises but has also directed the defendant to pay the damages as claimed by the plai...

K.M. Kahdir Ahmed S/O Late Mohammed Khasim Vs. Suriya Parveen W/O Inay ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.07.2008 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 5372/2005 holding that the document produced by the defendant-petitioner herein styled as Gift Deed (oral 'Hiba') shall be admitted in evidence provided defendants pay required stamp duty on the document with penalty.2. The suit is filed by respondents-1 to 3 herein seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises by the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is a house property bearing No. 39 (Old No. 51) situated at N.H.K. Road also known as KPM Road, Kalasipalyam, Bangalore.3. Defendant No. 2 - petitioner herein has filed his written statement taking up the specific contention that 1st defendant is the son of one Shaik Ali and he acquired the suit schedule property by way of Hiba executed by his father and as a result he became the absolute o...

Smt. Korapalu S. Shetty W/O Late Sham N. Shetty Vs. I.T.C. Limited Rep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2769; 2009(6)KarLJ586

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The civil revision petition arises out of an order patted by tile trial court on additional tone No. 2 framed by it and the trial court answered the mid issue concerning the jurisdiction of the Court in the negative and consequently held that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Aggrieved by the said decision the plaintiff has come up before this Court.2. Brief facts necessary for the purpose of this order are that, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration to the effect that the transfer of shares in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st respondent herein was illegal and also sought for an order of mandatory injunction against the defendants. The said prayer made in the context of the plaintiff a alleging in her pleading that her husband during his lifetime wanted some share certificates held by him in the 1st respondent-company to be transferred in favour of his daughter and her husband, but the snares were not transferred....

Giridhar Vijay S/O. Vijay Nair Vs. Visveswaraya Technological Universi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ163;

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 6518/2009 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.3.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition declining the prayer of the petitioner to conduct revaluation of the petitioner's answer script for the fifth semester examination.2. The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 6518/2009 seeking for revaluation of petitioner's answer scripts for the fifth semester examination viz 'Solid state devices and technology'. It is averred in the petition that petitioner joined BE course in Electronics and Communication subject offered by the second respondent-College comprising of eight semesters. It is further averred that a student entering into the seventh semester must have successfully passed all of his examinations for the first two years and all of his examinations for the third year, save four of them. The petitioner was regularly attending classes and was performing quite well in the examinations, getti...

In Re: Fei Software (India) (P.) Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]94SCL113(Kar)

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In both these petitions filed under Sections 391 - 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner-Companies namely, FEI Software (India) Private Limited (transferor Company) and Magma Design Automation India Private Limited (transferee Company) have sought for sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation, which is at Annexure-A so as to be binding on them, their shareholders and creditors. Accordingly, both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. The transferee Company was incorporated on 21-3-2003 with the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka. The transferee Company was incorporated to carry on the business of developing leading edge EDA (Electronic Design Automation) Software and Product Engineering Solutions etc. The registered office of the transferee Company is situate at Prestige Tech Park, Jupiter (2A) Block, 6th Floor, Sarjapur-Marathahalli Ring Road, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore - 560 087.3. The transferor Company was incorporate...

Classic Developers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)25VST375(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitions by an assessee who is assessable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment orders passed under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act for the period from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 for each of the month, copy of the order is produced as annexure C, dated January 20, 2009 and consequential demand notice annexures D to D9.3. The submission of Mr. Surenderanath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that in respect of the returns filed by the petitioner for the relevant period, the assessing authority had, while not accepted the returns, passed an assessment order in terms of the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Act for the year 2005-06, as per the orders at annexures B to B11, that much later the petitioner had been issued with the notice to reopen the concluded assessment by issue of notice under Section 39(1) of the Act and that too by respondent No. 2...

K.N. Sakrappa S/O Pothappa, Deepa Trading Company Vs. Karnataka State ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2415; 2009(3)KCCR1566; 2009(5)KLJ720; 2009(5)AIRKarR277

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitions by a person who was the auction purchaser of certain immovable properties which were put to auction sale on 5.4.2006 by the second respondent -Karnataka State Financial Corporation for non-payment of loan borrowed by the respondents 5 to 7 - partners of M/s. Hari Industries and Renuka Enterprises located at Challakere town of Chitradurga District.2. The proposed auction which had been notified on 14.7.2005 and after the bid of the petitioner was accepted and the property itself conveyed to the petitioner as per sale deed dated 5.4.2006 has resulted in one misery after another suffered by the petitioner as it appears the erstwhile owners of the auctioned property were in arrears of payment of sales tax due to the third respondent -Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the third respondent became active for recovery of the balance of the amount that was outstanding in the names of respondents 5. 6. 7 by having recourse to the proper...

Nec Realestate Pvt. Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Companies Rep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ665

1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 15348/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge has declined to quash the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent and treated the impugned order as a show cause notice and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the said show cause notice and issued a direction to the respondents to consider the cause shown by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition in part keeping open all the contentions to be decided by the appropriate authorities.2. The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 15348/2008 seeking for quashing of the order passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2008, wherein the approval accorded by proceedings dated 18.11.2008 after following the due procedure by the State High Level Clearance Committee for the project of petitioner to set up a Tourist Complex, Commercial Space, Financial Hub, R & D facilities with Residential Condominium, Service Apartment and Medical City...