Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas690(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter arises out of the report filed by the official liquidator attached to this court in O.L.R. No. 171 of 1982, made in Company Petition No. 7 of 1981. 2. In the report under consideration, the official liquidator has prayed of directions as to whether he should file a criminal complaint under s. 454(5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the ex-directors of the company mentioned in para. 3 of the report for non-compliance with the requirements of s. 454(1) of the Act. The persons mentioned in para. 3 of the report and described as directors are : 1. Sri D. L. Batcheler,15-A, Perring Avenue,Farm Borough, Hants,Hampshire,England, U.K.2. Sri G. Basappa,S/o. Karibasappa,Landlord,Poddamgadi,Mayakonda Post.3. Sri K. S. Chandrappa,S/o. K. S. Mahadevappa,Kasipura Village,Davanagere Taluk.3. The facts which are required to be stated and extracted in the report under consideration are as follows : 4. In Company Petition N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1962
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:'a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -i) directing respondents 1 to 3 their subordinate officers, servants and agents to cancel and/or withdraw and/or set aside the Cement Control Order 1967 as amended from time to time and as presently operative;ii) in the alternative directing respondents 1 to 3 their subordinate officers, servants and agents -a) to grant an increase of Rs. 55-12 paise per metric tonne in the retention price on account of increase in cost of production due to factors other than power cut and to grant a further increase in the retention price over and above the aforesaid increase to the tune of Rs. 90.53 paise per metric tonne on account of increase in production due to pow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2001)167CTR(Kar)224; [2001]250ITR432(KAR); [2001]250ITR432(Karn); [2001]117TAXMAN236(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 173/Bang. of 1993, dated September 23, 1999, relating to the assessment year 1992-93, the Revenue has come up in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). According to the Revenue, the following substantial questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal :'(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance made by the assessing authority in the assessee's case under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was not proper?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessing authority was required to rectify the mistake under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Admit.3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to answer the questions of law raised before us,4. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: MFA No.6065/2015 and MFA No.6066/2015 filed U/O 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated:29.07.2015 passed on IA Nos.3 and 4 respectively in O.S No.4899/2015 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru City, allowing IA Nos.3 and 4 filed U/O 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/W Sec.151 of CPC.) 1. M.F.A.No.6065/2015 has been filed challenging the order dated 29.7.2015 passed in O.S.4899/2015 allowing I.A.No.3. M.F.A.No.6066/2015 has been filed challenging the order dated 29.7.2015 passed in O.S.4899/2015 allowing I.A.No.4. 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, both these appeals are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These Appeals are filed by the defendant in O.S.No.4899/2015 challenging the order dated 29.07.2015 granting temporary injunction restraining it from using or referring in any manner, the test results of Kaleido in any press releases, public announcements, promotional or other materials...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008]141CompCas558(Kar); ILR2007KAR3375
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this Petition under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning of the scheme of amalgamation.2. The petitioner company is incorporated under the provision of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Registered Office of the petitioner company is situate at Bangalore at No. 139/1, Hosur Main Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 095, Karnataka. The main object of the petitioner company as set in the Memorandum of Association is to manufacture either for its own use or for sale in India or for export outside India computer systems, computer peripherals and accessories, computer consumables like floppy disks/diskettes, hard disks, ribbons, etc., as set out in the Memorandum of Association. Annexure-B is the copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner company. The authorized share capital of the company as on 18-8-2006 is 20 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Rfa Is Filed U/S 96 Of Cpc Against The Judgment And Decree Dt: 02.01.2007 Passed In Os. No. 2715/2001 On The File Of The X Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Cch-26, Decreeing The Suit For Recovery Of Money.) 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff of an original suit in O.S.No.2715/2001 which was pending on the file of the City Civil Court Hall No.26, presided over by X Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore. Respondents herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the Trial Court. Suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed against defendant No.2 only. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit against defendant no. 1, plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 2. Suit had been filed for the recovery of money to an extent of Rs.8.55 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a. thereon from 17.04.1998 till the date of payment. The plaintiff had prayed for a joint and several decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Rfa Is Filed U/S 96 Of Cpc Against The Judgment And Decree Dt: 02.01.2007 Passed In Os. No. 2715/2001 On The File Of The X Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Cch-26, Decreeing The Suit For Recovery Of Money.) 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff of an original suit in O.S.No.2715/2001 which was pending on the file of the City Civil Court Hall No.26, presided over by X Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore. Respondents herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the Trial Court. Suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed against defendant No.2 only. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit against defendant no. 1, plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 2. Suit had been filed for the recovery of money to an extent of Rs.8.55 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a. thereon from 17.04.1998 till the date of payment. The plaintiff had prayed for a joint and several decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(94)ELT308(Kar)
1. The instant appeal is filed by the State challenging judgment dated 22-6-1992 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore in C.C. No. 742/1984 whereby the said court acquitted the accused. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : That the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports being authorised under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 had filed a complaint as against the respondents/accused before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Court') for the offences alleged to have been committed by them under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The complaint against the respondents/accused is that accused No. 1 is a fictitious firm floated by accused No. 2. Accused No. 3 is a businessman of Bombay dealing in licence for iron and steel, accused No. 4 is a commission agent dealing in imports of iron and steel materials and ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Crl. A. No.835/2014 is filed Under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Advocate for the Appellant/Accused No.1 Praying that this Honble Court may be Pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence Both Dated: 27.09.2014 Passed by the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha and Others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 Convicting the Appellant/Accused No.1 for the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Appellant/Accused No.1 is Sentenced to Undergo Simple Imprisonment for a Period of Four Years, and to pay a Fine of Rs.100 Crores. In Default to pay the Fine Amount, she shall Undergo Further Imprisonment for One Year For the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(5)KarLJ525
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants have been dismissed and the demand raised against them upheld. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:2. The appellants are carrying on business in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit in the distilleries established by them for that purpose. The spirit manufactured by the appellants is almost entirely used for the manufacture and bottling of arrack which is in turn regulated by the Karnataka Excise (Manufacture and Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987. Apart from the said Rules, the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967 also makes several provisions regulating allotment of Rectified Spirit, its transportation, storage etc., Rule 31 of the said later set of Rules empowers the respondents to allot Rectified Spirit to the arrack manufacturers who take the delivery of the allotted quant...
Tag this Judgment!