Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-18-1987
Reported in : ILR1988KAR481; 1987(3)KarLJ378
ORDERRama Jois, J.In all these Writ Petitions, presented by the publishers of certain magazines questioning the legality of the seizure of all the copies of certain issues of the magazines the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether a Police Officer has the power to seize all the copies of an issue of a magazine printed and published and/ or kept for sale in the Book stalls on the ground that an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) is suspected to have been committed through writings, articles and/or pictures published in the said issue of magazine?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these:(i) In W.P.10650/86 :- This Writ Petition is by Akhila Publishers Pvt. Limited, Bangalore. They are the publishers of a weekly film magazine entitled 'Chitravihari'and a monthly magazine entitled 'Surathi'. On 6-6-1986 the Upparpet Police in the City of Bangalore seized 20,000 copies of 'Surathi' magazine comprising of different monthl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-25-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2177
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Government of Karnataka (Home Department) refusing to renew the four licenses held by him which were valid up to 31-12-1984. It is not in dispute that these licenses were granted to him to enable him to carry on business in the manufacture and sale of Fire Arms under the name and style of 'Dwaraka Arms Stores' situate at Sathyanarayanapet, Bellary. The State Government being the Renewal Authority under the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Act), the petitioner made an application for the renewal of these licenses in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The State Government made an order on 13-12-1985 rejecting his application for renewal. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 19681 of 1985 and this Court by its Order dated 16-7-1986 set aside the said order on the short ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-10-1987
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas641(Kar)
ORDERP.P. Bopanna, J.1. This company petition is filed by the creditors of an unregistered company which is carrying on business under the name and style of madras Sapper Ex-Servicemen's Rehabilitaton Association. There are six petitioners and all are creditors of this unregistered company (hereafter referred to as ``the company'')2. Petitioner No. 1 is the creditor of the company in a sum of Rs. 16,11,908.51,petitioner No. 2 is the creditor of the company in a sum of Rs. 1,72,949.03,petitioner No. 3 is the creditor in a sum of Rs. 7,80,284.94, petitioner No. 4 is the creditor in a sum of Rs. 1,98,752.79 and petitioner No. 6 is the creditor in a sum of Rs. 1,46,042.78. This, in all, an aggregate amount of Rs. 33,49,262.58 is admittedly due from the company to these petitioners since 1984.3. The case of the petitioners is that these amount have been outstanding in spite of repeated demands and, therefore, they are entitled to 12% interest on the amounts due to them from the respective d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-13-1987
Reported in : AIR1989Kant35
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that Cl.27(n) of the agreement regarding the distributorship of Liquified Petroleum Gas entered into between him and the respondentIndian Oil Corporation, as void as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and for the, issue of consequential orders quashing the order by which the said distributorship agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation was terminated.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Distributor of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG for short) for Hebbal and Yelahanka area in the City of Bangalore, on -40-2-1984. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation ('the Corporation' for short) on 5-3-1984 in which the terms and conditions under which the petitioner was appointed as a Distributor for the LPG were set out. On 29-7-1987 the officers of the Corporation carried out a surprise inspect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-30-1987
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas683(Kar)
Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the recipient of a certain sum of money by mistake is required to return the same with interest or not 2. The circumstances leading to this litigation are as follows : The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 34 of 1983 on the file of the Civil Judge, Davangere, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 plus Rs. 33,438.75 as interest, etc., alleging that the defendant was its constituent from May 23, 1980, to July 5, 1985, maintaining accounts in the name of 'Sri Kottureshwara Rice Mill and Oil Mills' ; that during that period, i.e., on June 14, 1980, plaintiff-bank had received a T.T. (telegraphic transfer) advice from their R.S. Puram, Coimbatore branch, to credit the account of the defendant with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000; accordingly this amount was credited and drawn by the defendant on the same day; that on receipt of confirmation telegram, dated June 21, 1980, by mistake or oversight, a further...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-30-1987
Reported in : AIR1987Kant236; ILR1987KAR1973; 1987(2)KarLJ95
Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the recipient of a certain sum of money by mistake is required to return the same with interest or not?2. The circumstances leading to this litigation are as follows:The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 34 of 1983 on the file of (he Civil Judge, Davanager, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus Rs. 33,438-75 P. as interest etc. alleging that the defendant was its constituent from 23-5-1980 to 5-7-1985 maintaining accounts in the name of 'Sri. Kottureshwara Rice Mill and Oil Mills'; that during that period, i.e., on 14-6-1980 plaintiff-Bank had received T.T. (Telegraphic Transfer) advice from their R. S. Puram, coimbatore Branch to credit to the account of the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-; accordingly, this amount was credited and drawn by the defendant on the same day; that on receipt of confirmation telegram, dated 21-6-1980, by mistake or oversight a further sum of Rs. 1,00,00...
Tag this Judgment!