Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments

Mera Healthcare Private Limited. Vs.

Court: Karnataka

1. The applicant transferor-Company No.1. In respect of scheme of amalgamation as at Annexure-F to the application, is before this Court praying that the convening of the meeting of the equity shareholders and unsecured creditors be dispensed.2. Heard Sri. Abhijith Atur. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the application papers.3. The averments made in the application as pointed out by the learned counsel would indicate that the applicant-Company. Which was incorporated on 07.01.2004 has been carrying on its business. The Board of the applicant-Company by its resolution dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure-C) has resolved that the scheme of amalgamation be accepted and the applicant. Company be transferred as per the scheme of amalgamation. In respect of the same, the further process is being taken up by the applicant-Company.3. The Chartered Accountant as per his certificate as at Annexure-G has certified that the applicant-Company has two shareholders. The said two shareho...

Sri Mohammed Man Sheik Son of Late Rashid Sheik. and anr. Vs. the Stat ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioners in these two petitions are arrayed as accused in Crime No.20/2012 registered by Tiptur Police consequent to reference made in PCR No.86/2011. The investigation is under progress for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.2, As per the averments of complaint, the petitioner in Crl.P No.832/2012 is the elder brother of petitioner in Crl.P No.833/2012. The petitioner in Cri.P No.833/2012 had applied for a dealership to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. In the complaint, it is alleged that petitioners had colluded together and brought into existence certain documents to make it appear that petitioner in Crl.P No.833/2012 has passed SSLC examination, which is one of the requisites to become a dealer. As per the investigation records, Solvency certificate produced by petitioner in Crl.P No.833/2012 is also a suspected document.3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner in Crl.P No.832/2012 had not applied for dealership from M/s...

Ms. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ms. Vakil Housing ...

Court: Karnataka

N. ANANDA, J.1. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5898/2011, Criminal Petition No.5899/2011 and Criminal Petition No.3679/2011 arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.31830/2009, C.C.No.97905/2009 and C.C.No. 109155/2009 have filed these petitions to quash the proceedings therein pending trial for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) are heard together and taken up for decision by this common. The brief facts as averred in the complaints are as follows:-2. The sole respondent in all these petitions is the complainant in all the cases. The averments of complaint are common and parties are common. Therefore, these petitions That on 19.04.2007. the complainant entrusted the construction of 317 villas at an approximate value of Rs.40 crores in terms of letter of intent for villa construction in terms of "Annexure-A". The accused accepted the letter of intent and started construction activity. However, accused could not keep ...

R. Vijaya Kumar Vs. Muniyammanni and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. These writ petitions are directed against the order of I.A.Nos.6 and 7 filed by the petitioner, one under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908 and another under Section 151 of the CPC.2. Petitioner-defendant 2 had sought for amendment of the written statement for incorporating para 13-A. He also filed another application in I.A.No.VII seeking counter-claim against the plaintiffs. Both the applications have been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 11th January, 2012, as against which, these writ petitions have been filed.3. Respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.15590 of 2006. In response to the summons, this defendant has filed a written statement on 22-7-2006 and the application for counter-claim was filed on 28-3-2011. The counter-claim could have been filed either before filing the written statement or before a day fixed for filing the written statement as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6-A of CPC.4. As far as application I.A...

B.S. Yeddyurappa Vs. the Lokayukta of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J1. The petitioner, who was the former Chief Minister (BJP) of the State of Karnataka, is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:(i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Complaint dated 22.8.2011 filed by the 3rd respondent/Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, against him for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Annexure-A;(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the FIR registered in Crime No.36/2011 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Annexure-A-1;(iii) to quash the Order of Sanction dated 2.8.2011 for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner at Annexure-B on the file of Governor of Karnataka;(iv) to quash the relevant portion of the Report at chapter 22 of Lokayukta dated 27.7....

Chandrasekharasharma Vs. C. Krishnaiah Chetty

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 26.5.2006 MADE IN REFERENCE NO.38/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-Q) AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS ERRORS, WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC.,)1. Petitioner is calling in question the award dated 26.05.2006 made in reference No.38/99 by second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, (Annexure-Q) and seeks for declaration that petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits.2. Heard Sri. Narayan Bhat learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order as also the Annexures appended to the petition.3. Petitioner was appointed in the respondent company as a counter salesman in the year 1995 and was asked to undergo training and said period of training was extended from t...

Haribhau Siddapa Patil and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: Writ Appeal Filed U/S 4 of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition No. 4834/2007 Dated 28.09.2007) 1. Appellants are owners of some parcels of lands notified initially u/s 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short the Act) as per notification No. CI 565 SPQ 2006, Bangalore, dated 06.12.2006 (copy at Annexure-A) and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 08.12.2006 declaring it as an industrial area for the purpose of the Act. Simultaneously, another notification of even date was issued u/s 1 (3) of the Act indicating that the provisions of Chapter 7 of this Act was made applicable and the statutory provisions provided for in this Chapter for acquisition and disposal of land so notified will be put into operation. 2. The third notification also came to be issued simultaneously on the very date u/s 28 (1) of the Act indicating that the very lands are required for the purpose of establishing industries...

S. Arjun Rao Birje and Others Vs. S. Vittal Rao Birje and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR1708; 2012(4)KantLJ501

(Prayer: RFA filed U/S,96 OF CPC Against The Judgment Decree DT.20.2.2008 passed in O.S.NO.118/2004 on the file of the I ADDL. City Civil And Sess. Judge, Bangalore (CCH-2), Partly Decreeing THE Suit for Partition and Separate Possession ETC) MANJUNATH, J 1. The appellants are questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2004 by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dated 20th April 2008. 2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are hereunder: According to the plaint averments, one Narve Somoji Rao, was the full and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. He had no male issues and died intestate. He died leaving behind him his wife Ladu Bai and daughter - Ganga Bai, who was the mother of the plaintiff and defendant. It is also his case that in addition to the plaintiff and defendants, their mother had three daughters by name Kousalya Bai, Muktha Bai and Kasturi Bai and they married prior to 1990. The maternal gran...

S. Arjun Rao Birje and ors. Vs. S. Vittal Rao Birje and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(4)KarLJ501; 2012(3)KCCR1708; 2012(4)KantLJ501

(Prayer: RFA filed U/S,96 OF CPC Against The Judgment Decree DT.20.2.2008 passed in O.S.NO.118/2004 on the file of the I ADDL. City Civil And Sess. Judge, Bangalore (CCH-2), Partly Decreeing THE Suit for Partition and Separate Possession ETC)MANJUNATH, J1. The appellants are questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2004 by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dated 20th April 2008.2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are hereunder:According to the plaint averments, one Narve Somoji Rao, was the full and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. He had no male issues and died intestate. He died leaving behind him his wife Ladu Bai and daughter - Ganga Bai, who was the mother of the plaintiff and defendant. It is also his case that in addition to the plaintiff and defendants, their mother had three daughters by name Kousalya Bai, Muktha Bai and Kasturi Bai and they married prior to 1990. The maternal grand fa...

M/S Kerala State Electronics Development Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Tr ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Civil Misc. Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint an Arbitrator with regard to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, etc.)1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to decide the dispute arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.6.2008 and 1.2.2009 respectively.2. M/s Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (KELTRON), represented by its General Manager is the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (‘BMTC’ for short), the respondent herein, invited tenders vide tender notification No.BMTC/208/002 dated 3.4.2008 for providing passenger information service based on online GPS system in Volvo buses operated by the respondent and at bus shelters of BMTC. The petitioner b...