Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1993
Reported in : [1993]77CompCas179(Kar); [1993]78CompCas96a(Kar); ILR1993KAR293; 1993(1)KarLJ212
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This Division Bench consisting of N. Venkatachala, J. (as he then was) and K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. has referred the following question for consideration by a Full Bench under section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 : 'What is the correct period of limitation for claims to be made under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act having regard to the provision in section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 ?' 2. Hence, the matter is before us. 3. The reference is necessitated due to conflicting views expressed by several High Courts. 4. We have heard both sides. 5. Before we embark upon considering the question referred to us for opinion, it is necessary to notice sections 446 and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as the answer to the question depends upon the interpretation to be placed on these sections. 6. Sections 446 and 458A of the Act read as follows : '446. Suits stayed on winding up order. - (1) When a winding up or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1993
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1482; 1993(1)KarLJ271
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.Govt. Pleader to take notice for R-1 and R-2. Writs of certiorari and mandamus have been sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.1. Writ of Certiorari has been sought in respect of an order dated 30.4.1988 passed in B.C.D.A.C.R.71/80-81 by the Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk. The operative portion of the order reads:-Writ of Mandamus to the Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk as not to give effect to his order dated 30,4.1988 passed in INACR/71/80-81 and not to change the Khata in favour of one Sabjansab.2. Few facts to briefly state are:-Certain claims were made by some persons claiming themselves to be having interest in Thoti Sainic Inam Lands attached to the Thoti Office of Kollur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk. The jurisdiction Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 6.12.71 (Annexure-E) by virtue of powers conferred under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 re-granted certain extent of lands comprised in Sy.No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-12-1993
Reported in : [1993]77CompCas1(Kar); ILR1993KAR620; 1993(1)KarLJ412
Kedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This company application is filed by the official liquidator under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, against 9 of the former directors of Messrs. Chamundi Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. (in liquidation) alleging acts of misfeasance and breach of trust. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were the directors of the company during the period noted below : Respondent No. 1 : From the date of incorporation till thedate of winding up order.Respondent No. 2 : From August 12, 1961, to February 11, 1969.Respondent No. 3 : From August 12, 1961, to June 22, 1972.Respondent No. 4 : From March 14, 1962, to October 11,1968. (as a nominee of the IndustrialFinance Corporation, Delhi.)Respondent No. 5 : From September 1, 1968, till the date ofwinding up order.Respondent No. 6 : From March 30, 1970, till the date ofwinding up order.Respondent No. 7 : From April 21, 1975, till the date ofwinding up order.Respondent No. 8 : From July 13, 1976, to the date ofwinding up order. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-1993
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT(Cri)417; ILR1993KAR543; 1993(1)KarLJ234
Hiremath, J.1. The appellant and two others stood charged before the Court of Sessions at Bidar under Sections 302, 307, 324 and Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The charge was that on 26.9.1989 at about 8 a.m. at village Warwatti in Bidar district all the three accused inflicted fatal injuries on Goraknath with axe and sticks with the common intention of causing his death and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day afternoon in the District Hospital, Bidar. In the same incident, with the common intention of committing the murder of another person Ram, son of Goraknath, they did assault him with axe and sticks and attempted to commit his murder. In furtherance of the common intention they caused hurt with these deadly weapons to Jana Bai, wife of Goraknath, they also caused hurt to Laxman, son of Goraknath and Manik, son of Sangappa and committed an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Similarly, C.W.14 Kishen was assaulted by them with sticks and hence cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1993
Reported in : [1993]78CompCas312(Kar); (1993)115CTR(Kar)292; ILR1993KAR709
D.P. Hiremath, J. 1. The petitioners herein have challenged the legality of the complaint filed by the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessments), against them for various offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore. A-1 is a private limited company, A-2 and A-3 are its directors and A-4, a chartered accountant, auditing their accounts. They are alleged to have committed offences under sections 276C and 277 read with sections 278B and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During verification of the accounts submitted by them for the assessment year 1985-86 for the period ending on March 31, 1985, it was revealed that a false claim regarding depreciation on buildings in a sum of Rs. 1,35,480 was made by the company and investment allowance amounting to Rs. 5,30,506 was also claimed which A-1 could not have done. Similarly, there was fabrication of false evidence regarding commissioning of the intermix before March 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1993
Reported in : [1993]200ITR717(KAR); [1993]200ITR717(Karn)
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the legality of the complaint filed by the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessments), against them for various offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore. A-1 is a private limited company, A-2 and A-3 are its directors and A-4, a chartered accountant, auditing their accounts. They are alleged to have committed offences under s 276C and 277 read with s 278B and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During verification of the accounts submitted by them for the assessment year 1985-86 for the period ending on March 31, 1985, it was revealed that a false claim regarding depreciation on buildings in a sum of Rs. 1,35,480 was made by the company and investment allowance amounting to Rs. 5,30,506 was also claimed which A-1 could not have done. Similarly, there was fabrication of false evidence regarding commissioning of the intermix before March 31, 1985, to entitl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-28-1993
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1276
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, against the order dated 4.4.1990 passed by the learned XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in S.C.No. 5662/88 dismissing the suit of the petitioner as time-barred.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of the case.3. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for the return of the deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest accrued thereon. In response to the publication of the respondents inviting deposits from the public, the petitioner through her mother Smt. B.P.Geethalakshmi, deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- under deposit receipt No. F.D.R.073 dated 3.3.1982 initially for three years carrying interest at the rate of 18% P.A. and thereafter the defendants agreed to hold the same as deposit and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-09-1993
Reported in : ILR1993KAR792; 1993(1)KarLJ596
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. These two Writ Petitions have been presented by petitioners 1 and 2 seeking common reliefs based on common facts and grounds taken therein. Therefore, these Petitions are disposed of by the following common order.2. Petitioner-1 is the All India Vijaya Bank SC/ST Employees Association represented by its General Secretary Sri D.Narayana, while petitioner-2 is Sri K.Nagappayya, an employee working in Vijaya Bank, respondent-1 represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore. Respondent-2 is the Union of India impleaded for the purpose of seeking general relief arising out of the rights of the petitioners by virtue of their service in the Bank and in general under the Constitution.3. The case of the petitioners is that they are aggrieved by the promotion of certain candidates on the basis of seniority subject to fitness to the Junior Management Cadre Scale-1 and consequent issuance of Circular No. 197/85 dated 16.12.1985 with a list (Annexure-II) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-26-1993
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)427; 1994CriLJ358; 1993(2)KarLJ569
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to reverse or set aside the order dated 30-10-91 passed in C.C. No. 5125/91 directing the registration of a case against him under S. 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner while he was in charge of Girinagar Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No. 1212/90 against one Venkatesh for an offence under S. 324, IPC. Subsequently a charge-sheet was also filed against the said Venkatesh in C.C. No. 3783/90 on the file of the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 3. The petitioner was one of the witness in the said case. The trial Court issued witness summons through a police constable Basavaraj for service who was then attached to Girinagar Police Station. He returned the said summons to the Court with an endorsement that the petitioner refused to receive the same. Thereupon the learned magistrate ordered registration of a case against the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-26-1993
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1323; 1993(2)KarLJ105
ORDERK.A. Swami, Ag. C.J 1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 1.6.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.2038/86 (LA). The Writ Appeal was filed on 23rd January 1993. Therefore, the office has raised an objection that the Appeal is barred by time, in the light of the provisions contained in Article 117 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. 2. The appellant has stated before the Registry that the appeal preferred under Section 4 of the High Court Act being the continuation of the remedy sought in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not governed by the provisions contained in Article 117 of the Limitation Act, because the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not a civil proceeding. Hence, the office has posted the matter before the Court for consideration. 3. Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!