Karnataka Court September 2009 Judgments

The Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4166

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 14/10/2004 allowing W.P. No. 23147/1999 and directing to settle the pensionary benefits of deceased respondent, is questioned in this appeal urging various grounds and praying to set aside the same.2. The contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the relief granted in the writ petition is on the basis of the decision of this Court in W.A. No. 2655/1995 wherein the Apex Court decision in Major Radhakrishnan's case is relied upon, which is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision reported in : AIR 2001 SC 1772 (Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu). Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellants has requested this Court to allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon Section 20(1) of Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules.3. Mr. M.Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 justified the impug...

Technova Tapes (India) Private Limited, Represented by Its Director A. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in the State of Karnataka as on 7.2.1986 with the object of manufacturing and selling rear view mirrors and reflectors for automobiles. The petitioner was earlier known as M/s Reflex Auto Products Limited.The Company diversified its activities into manufacturing industrial tapes and changed its name to M/s Technova Tapes (India) Private Limited, with effect from 26.6.1995. A fresh Certificate of Incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner manufactures industrial adhesive tapes and claims to be the leading manufacturer of the product in India. It has developed and marketed more than 80 different types of tapes with specialised applications. It is an ISO 9001:2000 company. The name of the company therefore, according to the petitioner is indicative of its intention to be an inNOVAtor inTECHn...

Sampangi S/O J. Krishnappa, Vs. Ravi Shankar C.R., Station House Offic ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The present petition is filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are respectively accused Nos. 1 to 4 in PCR No. 82/2003 on the file of the learned JMFC, Anekal, that is filed by respondent No. 3 herein namely Narayanappa S/o.late Sonnappa against these petitioners and also the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein namely Ravishankar and Cheluvaraj, then Station House Officers of Baiyappanahalli and Attibele Police Stations of Anekal Taluk.2. The petitioners herein have sought for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against them in the said PCR No. 82/2003 and also FIR issued in Crime No. 23/2003 of Baiyyappanahalli Railway P.S., which came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2003 passed Under Section 156(3) Cr.PC directing the said Police to register the case and investigate into the matter.3. Stated in brief, the undisputed facts leading to the present petition are as under:(a) The deceased Sonnappa, the father of respondent No. 3 Narayanappa d...

Good-luck Education Society Rep. by Its Secretary and Vs. State of Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 14354/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2009, wherein the learned single judge of this Court has declined to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.2. The appellants herein filed W.P. No. 14354/2008 seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue Hall tickets to 16 students admitted in the second petitioner - Institution as per Annexure 'D' to the writ petition and to permit them to appear for the examinations for the first year D.Ed course, scheduled to commence from 17.11.2008 and also to declare the results.3. In the said writ petition, interim order was passed on 14.11.2008 permitting the 16 students admitted by the second petitioner - Institution to take examination subject to the result of the writ petition.4. Learned single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocat...

Official Liquidator of Alliance Leathers P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]151CompCas535(Kar)

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present application is filed under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. It is alleged that by an order dated December 1, 1999, in Company Petition No. 26 of 1994, the company-in-liquidation was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator. He had issued letters to the ex-directors to hand over the assets, books and records of the company which they failed to do. The statement of affairs filed by the ex-directors with the official liquidator on December 5, 2000, was defective and the same has not been taken into account. The official liquidator had issued several reminders to rectify the deficiencies, which they had failed to do. According to the official liquidator, figures shown in the statement of affairs filed by the respondents indicated a sum of Rs. 32,620.85 as realisable under the head--balance at bank. The directors had not taken efforts to furnish the name and address of the bank and details of the account. ...

Kuthar Ahmed Bava Vs. S.K. District Co-operative Fish Marketing Federa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ674

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. Though the matter posted today for admission with the consent of the Counsel it is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter call as 'Act' for short), on a trial held by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore and confirmed in appeal before the Sessions Court.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under:I will be referring to the parties as per the rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.The petitioner herein is the accused, whereas respondent is the complainant who filed the complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the accused owed a sum of Rs. 46,956.70 and to discharge the loan amount the accused issued a cheque dated 30-6-2002 for a sum of Rs. 46,856.70 in favour of the complainant and assured that he has sufficient funds in his account. The complainant presen...

State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. M. Revanna

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ295

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. No. 15158 of 2007, dated 6-3-2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is called in question in this appeal by the State and the Forest Department.2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:Forest Department conducted an auction of timber lots by notification dated 24-4-2007. Respondent participated in the tender and he became successful bidder in respect of 16 lots stated in para 1 of the writ petition. Subsequently, by an order dated 20-3-2007, the bid was confirmed in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner. Writ petitioner also participated in an auction conducted pursuant to another notification and purchased 5 lots, as stated in para 2 of the writ petition and the auction made by the respondent in respect of those 5 lots was also confirmed vide order dated 18-4-2007. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, respondent-writ petitioner was granted two months time to pay the sale price a...

Branch Manager, Branch Officer, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ302

N. Ananda, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of common judgment made in MVC Nos. 153, 151, 152, 154, 155 and 150 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga.2. I have heard Sri A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel for Insurance Company.3. The learned Counsel for Insurance Company would submit that vehicle involved in the accident i.e., jeep bearing No. MEG 3073 was insured with Insurance Company under an Act policy. Therefore, the policy did not cover the risk of occupants of jeep. The Tribunal has accepted the case of Insurance Company and ordered the Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimants and recover the same from the insured. The jeep was insured under 'liability only policy'. The insured had paid basic premium of Rs. 700/- to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver upto Rs. 2,00,000/- and risk of one employee, in terms of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The policy did not cover the risk of occupants...

Marakka and ors. Vs. Shahid Khan and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ678

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. Though these appeals are posted for admission, with the consent of Counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.2. M.F.A. No. 9256 of 2006 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation while M.F.A. No. 8876 of 2006 is filed by the Insurance Company with regard to the liability.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.4. The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation in respect of the death of one Nagaraja in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27-9-2004 at about 10.00 a.m. when he was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing No. KA-16-7984 as a passenger from Molakalmuru to Megalahatti. When the said autorickshaw came near Nunkappanna Katte, at that time, the driver of the autorickshaw drove in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the vehicle hit the road side tamarind tree and toppled towards the side of the road and Nagaraja sustained serious and grievous inj...

H.S. Aruna Vs. K.N. Prakash

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ285

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. A short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:Whether the Family Court is justified in allowing the petition in G and WC No. 176 of 2006 and directing the appellant-mother to give the custody of the ward viz., K.P. Ashwin Kumar to the custody of the respondent-father2. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:Learned Counsel for the appellant-mother submits that after dissolution of marriage, the respondent was given visiting rights, but later on the respondent got married for the second time and the ward was not willing to go and therefore the appellant did not send the boy against his will to the respondent-father. On that score, the respondent filed a petition in G and WC No. 176 of 2006 and the Trial Court, without taking into consideration the welfare of the child and the circumstances under which the ward refused to go, as per the earlier visiting arrangement, the Trial Court has mechanically allowed the...