Karnataka Court March 2016 Judgments
United Precision Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs. Kiocl Ltd
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF MARCH, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.16693/2014 (GM-RES) c/w WRIT PETITION No.16694/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: UNITED PRECISION ENGINEERS PVT.LTD., NO.67, LAVINA COURTS NO.102, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 080 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI N B RUKUMANGADA (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI VARUN JAYAKUMAR PATIL, ADV.) ... PETITIONER (COMMON) AND: KIOCL LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS KUDREMUKH IRON ORE CO.LTD., A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, II BLOCK, KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CP AND TS) SRI NOOR AHMED (COMMON) ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHANKARLINGAPPA NAGARAJ, ADV.) W.P.No.16693/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO; QUASH THE ORDER DATED1003.2014 PASSED BY2THE VI ADDL.CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE IN A.C.NO.2/2007 VIDE ANN-A AND...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajanna Vs. R. Susheela Bai and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Per used the records. 3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5396/99 and has been directed under the impugned order dated 16.09.2015 - Annexure "E" to pay duty and penalty as per the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short the Act) on the agreement of sale dated 15.07.1996 which came to be relied upon and it has been impounded by the Court below in exercise of its Powers under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff/petitioner that under Article 5(e)(lj of the Act, mere delivery of possession of the property under the agreement per se will not attract duty as a conveyance (No.20) to be paid on the market value of the property and con:ends that said Article mandates that when recital in the deed it is found, that possession of the property is delivered and also agreed to between the parties that no deed of conveyance would be executed, then only it wou...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand P. Jain Vs. B.S. Veerabhadraiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records in EX.No.1319/2014 pending on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and set aside the order dated 12.2.2016 passed on admissibility of document (impugned as Annexure-A) and overrule the objection for marking rent agreement dated 3.1.1994.) 1. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner, Sri Chandra Chood, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-1 and 2 and Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, learned HCGP who had been directed to appear on behalf of State and assist the Court since issue of stamp duty is involved in the present case. Perused the records. 2. Petitioner is the objector in Execution Case No.1319/2014. Resppondent-1 and 2 have obtained a decree for possession in O.S.No.6281/2007 which has been affirmed in RFA No.1320/2013 vide order dated 30.10.2013, which also came to be confirmed by the Apex Court in Special ...
Tag this Judgment!Lokamatha Rangappa, Karnataka and Others Vs. Astrix Technologies Priva ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Company Law Board (herein after referred to as the CLB ) whereby the CLB has issued directions and disposed of the company petition. 2. We have heard Mr.Perikal K. Arjun, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for the main contesting party-respondents No.2 and 3 i.e., the original petitioners No.1 and 2 who are appearing on caveat. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that original petitioner No. 1 had resigned and thereafter a meeting was held and various decisions were taken including that of permanent directorship and affirmative vote. The allegation of misappropriation of money were net proved before the CLB since the procedure before the CLB is by way of summary procedure. He further contended that the decisions were already taken by the Board and the Articles were also amended accordingly The CLB ought not to have issued the directions which are issued in the imp...
Tag this Judgment!R. Aneppa Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, rep. by it ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the award dated 1.2.2014 made in Ref. No.51/2012 (Annexure-E) passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.) 1. The workman has filed the above writ petition challenging the award dated 1.2.2014 made in Ref.No.51/2012 by the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore dismissing the reference under section 10(1) (C) (d) of the , confirming the dismissal order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27.12.2010 and the Disciplinary Authority order dated 31.7.2007. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as the driver under the respondent-Corporation and he had been issued with articles of charges on 17.7.2006 alleging that he remained unauthorizedly absent to duty from 7.6.2006 to 17.7.2007. It is his further case that he has not been served with charge sheet and no explanation was offered. He...
Tag this Judgment!L.G. Raghunath Vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order bearing dated 30.06.2011 passed by the second respondent as Annx-D and order bearing dated 27.11.2012 passed by the R-1 vide Annx-F to the W.P. and etc.,) 1. The petitioner who is working as a Divisional Mechanical Engineer under the respondents authorities had filed the above writ petition to quash the order bearing No.NEKRTC/CO/HUB/DISC/52/10/768 dated 30.06.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-D and order bearing No.KSRTC/CO/DISC/AP-595/1211/2012-13 dated 27.11.2012 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-F. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent employee of the respondent Corporation presently working as a Divisional Mechanical Engineer in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (South) at Bangalore. When he was working as a Divisional Mechanical Engineer in Bagalkot Division, the second respondent had issued articles of...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Deepak Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director K. Kotrab ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. In view of an order dated 13.09.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, raising a question as to 'whether a writ petition would be maintainable against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), while disposing of an appeal filed under S.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'), in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal provided under S.18, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, constituted this Bench to answer the said question. 2. Reference was made by the learned Single Judge, in view of the divergent views of the two Division Benches in W.A.No.6368/2011 decided on 21.11.2011, since reported in 2013 (1) AKR 370, (for short 'Hotel Vandana Palace case') and W.A.No.635/2013 decided on 18.03.2013, since reported in 2014 (1) AKR 40 (for short 'Smt. Lily Joseph case'). The conflict in the aforementioned two judgments centers round the availabil...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Pioneer Marketing, Rep. by its Proprietor Anilkumar Niranjanprasa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated.22.02.2016 issued by the R-2 at Annexure A which states that Nutralite is to be classified as unscheduled goods under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003 and etc.,) 1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri S S Naganad appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 2. The controversy in this petition is in the following background. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as KVAT Act, 2003). The petitioner, inter alia, deals with a product called Nutralite a brand of fat spread manufactured by M/s. Zydus Wellness Limited. According to the petitioner the said product is primarily comprised of edible oil and its use being similar to that of edible oils, the petitioner was of the understanding that the said product Nutralite is liable ...
Tag this Judgment!Ben Salmon and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
P.D. Waingankar, J. 1. Petitioners who are accused in C.C. No. 2435/2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Mayo-Hall, M.G. Road, Bangalore, have filed this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them in the aforesaid criminal case. 2. On 10.11.2014, Senior Labour Inspector filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Mayo-Hall, Bangalore, which came to be registered in C.C. No.2435/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 25 and 26 of the Interstate Migration of Labour (Employment Regulation and Service Conditions) Act, 1979. 3. The allegations made out in the complaint are that on 20.5.2014 around 12.15 p.m. when the complainant visited the establishment of the petitioners i.e., the building called East Point which was under construction in Sy. Nos. 87,88/1, 2 of Bagana Halli, Panathuru Road, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, the complainant found the violation of the provision of the Act and Rules 23 and 50 of the Interst...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Suresh and Others Vs. R. Girish
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the impugned order dated 23.01.2016 passed in MISC.777/2015 on the file for the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru at Annexure-A is contrary to the Law and facts, besides being perverse and capricious and further to allow this WP by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A.) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Misc.No.777/2015 whereunder petition filed by the petitioners under Section 24 CPC came to be rejected. 2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this writ petition can be crystallised as under: Respondent has filed two suits for recovery before City Civil Court, Bengaluru in O.S.Nos.8162/2011 and 8164/2011 which was initially pending before Court Hall No.28. These two suits came to be transferred on 21.01.2015 to Court Hall No.5. Grievance of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »