Karnataka Court May 2009 Judgments

Geomysore Service India Private Limited, Vs. Nil

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]94SCL116(Kar)

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These lour company petitions have been filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act seeking sanction of a scheme of arrangement. Since the scheme of arrangement is in respect of the four companies who have preferred the four company petitions, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Company Petition No. 13/2009 is filed by M/S. Geomysore Service India Private Limited which is a transferor company, Company Petition No. 14/2.009 is filed M/s. Premier Nickel Mines Private Limited which is transferee company No. 1; Company Petition No. 15/2009 is filed by M/s.Marwar Mineral Exploration Private Limited, which is transferee company No. 2; Company Petition No. 16/2009 is filed by M/s. Premier Minerals Exploration Private Limited which is transferee company No. 3.3. The scheme of arrangement between the aforesaid four companies is produced as Annexure-A in Company Petition No. 13/2009. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that ...

A. Anil Kumar S/O C. Anantharam Vs. Vanishri A. W/O. Anil Kumar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2009Kant201; ILR2009KAR3028; 2009(4)KCCR2398; 2009(5)AIRKarR239

1. This appeal is filed by the husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.6.2005 passed in M.C. No. 181/2003 by the 1st Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, by which the petition filed by the appellant herein seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.3. The petitioner was married to the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on 24.10.1993 at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore. After their marriage, parties started residing at Rajajinagar Bangalore-10. According to the petitioner, initially their relationship was cordial, but after a few months, the petitioner found that the respondent was very reserved and arrogant and of suspicious character. That she used to quarrel with the petitioner and his family members which was tolerated by them hoping that things would become normal in future. That out of the said wedlock, the respondent gav...

Sri. L.C. HussaIn S/O. Chamansab, First Grade Revenue Inspector, Town ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2470:2009(3)KCCR1973:2009(6)AIRKarR61

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.06.2003 in Special case No. 7/1998 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chitradurga.2. The appellant is the accused and the respondent is the complainant before the Sessions Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Sessions Court.3. The accused was working as First Grade Revenue Inspector in the Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga, in the month of February, 1998. The complainant - C.W.1 submitted an application to the Town Municipal Council for change of khata of property bearing No. 1060 situated at II Block of Chickpet, Chitradurga town in his name from the name of one Narasinga Rao as per Ex.P.7. The concerned Revenue Officer - P. W. 5 passed an order on 12.02.1998 directing the accused to inspect the spot, draw a mahazar, sketch and to submit a report. Thereafter C.W.1 approached the accused on 13.02.1998 requesting him ...

Management of Mysore Paper Mills Limited Represented by Gm-hrd Vs. Gen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ324; 2009(3)KCCR1955

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 22.04.2003 in reference No. 13/1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore declaring that respondent workmen are entitled for regularisation, pay scale and other benefits.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in various activities including running sugar mill, hereinafter called as the Management. The respondent is a trade union representing 144 workmen working in the petitioner Management, hereinafter called the workmen.3. It is the case of workmen that the Management appointed 144 workmen on daily wages in the following five departments.a. Industrial Canteenb. Sanitary departmentc. Pulp feedingd. Horticulturee. Guest House4. These workmen were appointed during the period from 1984 to 1990 on daily wages of Rs. 32. Subsequently the dairy wages was enhanced to Rs. 82. The work of these workmen is of permanent and perennial in nature and they ar...

Yashodamma W/O Gangajogi Gowda Vs. Sri Dying and Printing Works Rep. b ...

Court: Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.1. The complainant is in appeal against the judgment in PCR. No. 29539/00 dated 28.12.2002 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, rejecting the complaint, thereby acquitting the accused of the charge for the offence under Section 128, Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The appeal is pending admission from the year 2003 after notice to the respondent.3. Heard.4. Considering the grounds urged in the appeal against the impugned order, I am satisfied the matter requires reconsideration. Leave is granted and the appeal is admitted.5. As it is seen, since the issue that arises for consideration falls in a narrow compass, viz., the complaint being presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed, I have taken it up for final heating.6. The contextual facts as manifest from the records reveal:a) Complainant sought prosecution of the respondent for the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act on the premises that it had availed a loan of Rs. 6.80,000/- for busin...

Aneesa Ahmed W/O Fairoz Ahmed Vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner's vendor, amongst others was allotted a residential house in the High income Group (HIG) category, in III Stage, Devanur Extension, Mysore, under the HUDCO scheme, by the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA'). The initial cost of the building was Rs. 3 lakhs and on completion of the construction, the MUDA escalated the cost by Rs. 96,200/-, which when demanded was made over by the petitioner's vendor. It appears that some of the allottees aggrieved by the demand for the escalated cost invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in W.P. Nos. 28138/2000 and 30266/2000 & connected petitions, whence, by orders dt. 5.12.2001 Annexures-G and H directed the authorities to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein, calling upon them to pay the escalation charges and to conduct an enquiry and fix the cost of the building. The petitioner having purchased the property on 28.4.2003 approached the MUDA for execut...

Sri B.K. Srinivas S/O B. Krishna Iyengar Vs. the Bangalore Development ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ666:2009(4)KCCRSN180.

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner was the owner of revenue site bearing No. 3 measuring 30 x 40 feet situated in survey No. 170 of Kethamarahally, which was acquired lay respondent authority in the year 1976 for formation of residential layout No compensation was paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent by its official letter dated. 14.7.1976 bearing No. BDA/ADM/PA/197/76-77 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition intimated the petitioner that he would be allotted a site at the old allotment rate on filing of an affidavit within one month from the date of receipt of the above letter in lieu of compensation. According to the petitioner, he complied with all necessary formalities as instructed by BDA in the letter Annexure-A. But alternative site was not allotted to him though similarly situated land-owners who have also lost their respective revenue sites in acquisition got alternative sites. According to the petitioner, he made repeated representation for getting alternati...

Dr. Suma G.K. D/O. K.D. Janagi Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs, in this writ petition:a) To direct the respondents to reserve at least one seat out of 12 PG seats in-service quota of ESI Department for PGET-2009 and consider her claim for admission to PG in-service quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe.b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any-other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the PG seat - DOMS (Diploma in Ophthalmology) reserved for ESI in-service candidates in Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysore (Vide Annexure-F) and allot the said seat under the quota reserved for ST.Petitioner is the holder of MBBS Degree. She is working as Insurance Medical Officer w.e.f. 21.4.2001. She belongs to Scheduled Tribes.2. The State Government by notification dated 8.12.2006 issued the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course...

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by Its Managing D ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is disposed of finally after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on merits.2. The appellant APSRTC is aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal in favour of the respondents-claimants and two grounds put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the bus belonged to the appellant corporation was not involved in the accident and secondly the quantum of, compensation is on the higher side.3. Elaborating the above submission, learned counsel argued that the deceased traveling in a Hero Honda motorcycle sustained fatal injuries on account of a tempo, which overtook a lorry, hit the Hero Honda motorcycle driven by the deceased and therefore there was no involvement of the APSRTC bus and a false case has been registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus. To substantiate the above contention, the APSRTC has also examined RW-1 before the tribunal and as such, the tribunal was wrong in putting the blame on the driver of the appellant...

K. Venkatappa S/O Late Rajanna Vs. Sundaresh B.M. S/O Manjappa N. Ayak

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2010Kant12; 2010(1)KarLJ541

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 1803/2008 on the file of the Karnataka state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'), Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2008, wherein the appeal filed by the writ petitioner herein has been dismissed.2. The petitioner herein filed complaint No. 68/2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for brevity, the District Forum'), Shimoga, seeking a direction to the Opponent - respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- together with interest at 16% per annum from: 08/07/2006 on Rs. 2,00,000/-; 20/07/2006 on Rs. 3,00,000/- and 11/08/2006 on Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant and further, to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards general damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses of the legal notice.2.1 It is averred in the complaint that the Opponent was closely acquainted with the complainant since some years....