Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 4 of about 95 results (0.064 seconds)

Jul 13 2005 (HC)

Vibank Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Nil

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-13-2005

Reported in : [2006]130CompCas705(Kar); ILR2006KAR255

orderram mohan reddy, j.1. the petitioner a company, for short the transferor company' incorporated on 20th october 1995 under the companies act, 1956 (for short 'act') having its registered office at no. 15-16, vayudooth chambers, 4th floor, trinity junction, m.g. road, bangalore-560001 has presented this petition seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation exhibit-'e'.2. the main objects of the transferor company is to carry on business of providing long term finance to any person or persons, firm, company, corporation, society, association of persons on such terms and conditions as the company may deem fit for the purpose of construction or purchase of house/flat in india for residential purpose, amongst other objects set out in the memorandum and articles of association exhibit-'b'.3. the authorised share capital of the transferor company is rs. 10 crores divided into 1 crore equity shares of rs. 10/- each while the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital is rs. 10 crores divided into 10 lakh equity shares of rs. 10/- each.4. the balance sheet made up to 31-03-2004 exhibit-' a' of the transferor company duly audited by its auditors discloses its assets and liabilities.5. the board of directors of the transferor company in its meeting approved and adopted the scheme of amalgamation exhibit-'e' whereunder the transferor company is proposed to be merged with m/s vijaya bank, for short the transferee company', a company constituted under the banking companies ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

B.N. Kamalanabha Reddy Vs. Munivenkatappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR222

order 6 rule 17 - amendment of pleadings - whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the code - held - a reading of section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.petition rejected.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2005 (HC)

All India Trade Union Congress and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR3052; 2005(5)KarLJ414; (2006)ILLJ344Kant

orderr. gururajan, j.1. petitioners in all these petitions are before me challenging the notification bearing no. ld:15:lwa:2001 dtd: 1-8-2001 (annexure-o).2. facts in wp no. 28677-78/2001;the first and second petitioners are trade unions. third and the fourth petitioners are employed in the canteen run and maintained by the respondent/management. petitioners say that the management of the industries preferred employment on contract basis and that would facilitate them to exploit the workmen in terms of cheap labour. the system of contract labour has been considered as a baneful and pernicious system and has kindled the judicial conscience since the workmen would have no security of service and their wages have often been far below the minimum wages prescribed by the state government. in order to arrest this trend the central government enacted the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970 (for short 'the act'). the primary object of the act is to abolish the system of contract labour wherever it is possible. second respondent issued a notification dtd 11-4-1997 prohibiting employment of contract labour in industrial canteen. the said notification was challenged by several managements before this court by way of writ petitions. the matter was referred to a division bench. a division bench of this court dismissed the writ petitions in terms of its order dtd 30-9-1998 (reported in ilr 1998 kar 1897). the management thereafter preferred special leave petitions. they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2005 (HC)

Pro Lab a Partnership Concern and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rept ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR475; [2006]144STC33(Kar)

r. gururajan, j.1. all these writ petitions are referred to the division bench, by a learned judge of this court in terms of an order dated 3.3.2004. all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. facts in w.p.nos. 8602 and 8603-24/2004:the petitioners are carrying on the business at different places within the state of karnataka. they are registered as dealers under the karnataka sales tax act (for short 'the act'). the petitioners operate photographic studios and are engaged in providing service to customers for processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives. the petitioners submit that section 5-b of the act provides for levy of tax on the taxable turnover relating to transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts that are specified in the 6th schedule to the act. entry no. 25 of this schedule as it was enforced up to 6.9.1999 specified works contracts relating to 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints, photo negatives' and during different years prescribed rate of tax at 8% and 10%. a division bench of this court in its judgment dated 6.9.1999 keshoram surindranath photo-mag (p) ltd., and ors. v. asst. commissioner of commercial taxes (lr), city division, bangalore and ors., (2001) 121 stc 175 declared entry 25 of the 6th schedule to the act which specified the works contract of 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives' and also prescribed rate of basic tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2005 (HC)

Millenia Realtors Private Limited Vs. Sjr Infrastructure (Private) Lim ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-01-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ36

anand byrareddy, j.1. the facts of the case are, the appellant is said to be a reputed developer and builder. it is claimed that the appellant along with its group companies have specialized in the development of major information technology parks. the respondent, a private limited company, has obtained on lease plots bearing nos. 13, 14 and 15, epip, i phase, whitefield, bangalore measuring about 33,149 sq. m. (about 8 acres 19 guntas). the land was allotted to the respondent on 10-6-2002 by the karnataka industrial area development board ('kiadb', for short). physical possession has been delivered on 30-5-2003 and a lease agreement has been executed in favour of the respondent by the kiadb as on 17-11-2003.2. the respondent had made a proposal to the appellant as on 6-8-2003 to sub-lease the above land by the execution of an agreement of lease, within 15 days from kiadb executing the lease-cum-sale agreement in its favour. this proposal was accepted by the appellant.3. it is the case of the appellant that pursuant to the lease deed dated 17-11-2003 executed by kiadb in favour of the respondent, the appellant who had got the subject land surveyed and building plans prepared through its architects, had held meetings with the respondent, to finalize terms of the sub-lease, on 17-2-2004 and 18-2-2004, the appellant had got issued a public notice through several daily newspapers dated 18-3-2004 declaring the proposed intention of taking the land on sub-lease from the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Moulasab Bandgisab Goundi Vs. Yamanappa Ameenappa Hikodi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant412; ILR2005KAR5230; 2006(5)KarLJ295

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addi. district judge, bijapur in r.a. no. 7/88 wherein the learned district judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the addl. civil judge, bijapur in o.s. no. 169/83.2. the plaintiff had filed a suit to declare that the defendant no. 5 has not acquired any right, title or interest in the alleged sale deed dated 10-5-1982 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and also to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff and to order for delivery of possession if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in possession or lost the possession of the suit land. the plaintiff said to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 4 for a valuable consideration of rs. 10,000/- under a sale deed dated 30-7-1979 which is to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas situated at tadalagi village, basavana bagewadi taluk. it is stated that immediately after the sale deed the title of the suit property passed to the plaintiff and the possession was also given and he started cultivating the property, and that subsequently, defendants 1 to 4 without the knowledge of the plaintiff have executed the sale deed dated 10-5-1982 in favour of defendant no. 5 in respect of the same property for a sale consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 2005 (HC)

Binani Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-06-2005

Reported in : [2006]145STC24(Kar)

h.l. dattu, j. 1. the appellants in these appeals are dealers registered under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the act, 1957'). apart from other business activities, they are also in the business of leasing machinery, equipment and motor vehicles. in the writ petitions filed, they had called in question the legality or otherwise of section 5-c of the act and the circular instructions issued by the commissioner of commercial taxes no. 5 of 1996-1997 dated april 12, 1996 and the subsequent circular no. 31 of 1999-2000, dated october 23, 1999, clarifying the effect of section 5-c of the act and the consequential orders of assessments, proposition notices/show cause notices issued by the assessing authorities and the revisional authorities. since common questions of law had been involved in all the writ petitions filed before the court, the learned single judge had raised three primary issues for determination. they were :i. whether section 5-c of the act is unconstitutional and void on account of failure to obtain previous sanction of the president under article 304(b) of the constitution ?ii. if section 5-c of the act is valid, what is the true effect and whether it is correctly interpreted in the circular dated april 12, 1996 or in the circular dated october 23, 1999 ?iii. what is the effect of commissioner's circular no. 5 of 1996-1997, dated april 12, 1996 and the subsequent circular no. 31 of 1999-2000 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2005 (HC)

itc Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-08-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant330; 2005(4)KarLJ359

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. all these petitions are by persons who have dealings in the notified agricultural produce, as the expression occurs within the meaning of sub-section (28) of section 2 of the karnataka agricultural produce marketing (regulation) act, 1966 (for short, 'the act').2. while most of the petitioners are in fact what is known as 'market functionaries', within the meaning of this phrase as it occurs in sub-section (21) of section 2 of the act and are also licensed market functionaries, having sought for and obtained licences to function so within the notified area in respect of the agricultural produce market committees (apmc), only the petitioner in w.p. no. 39753 of 2004, namely m/s. itc limited, is not a licensed market functionary within the market area of the apmc, doddaballapur, within which area this petitioner has some activities in relation to the notified agricultural produces namely wheat and other produces.3. petitioners have approached this court even at the threshold praying for certain relief and the common cause made by all these petitioners is with regard to the liability for payment of any market fee under the provisions of the act, particularly under section 65 of the act in respect of the activities of stocking of the notified agricultural produce and processing of such produces within the market area. insofar as this aspect is concerned, while the stand of the respondents is that such activities are also sought to be roped in for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2005 (HC)

Sarfaraj Nawaz C. Loni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ137

orderr. gururajan, j.1. all these petitions are taken up together for final disposal.petitioner-sarfaraj nawaz loni is before me seeking for a writ of declaration that rule 3(1)(d) of the karnataka selection of candidates for admission to professional institutions rules, 2005 as being arbitrary and ultra vires to articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of india. petitioner seeks permission to appear for counselling to be conducted by the second respondent in ii-b category. petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to refund or adjust the tuition fee paid by the petitioner for the academic year 2004-05.1.1 petitioner completed his pre-university examination with 69.33%. he appeared for the get held in may 2004. he was selected and he was suceessful. he selected a seat for i year mbbs course in jjm medical college, davanagere through counselling held by the second respondent on 13-9-2004 in iibg/k category with the ranking of 4872. petitioner joined the college. however, on 30-9-2004 he informed the college that since the fee had been fixed at rs. 1,72,000/- per year, it was financially not possible for him to meet the same in addition to other miscellaneous fee, therefore he surrendered the seat.1.2 petitioner once again appeared for the get held on 3-5-2005 and 4-5-2005 and has been allotted medical rank of 3311. petitioner submits that on account of the restraint placed on candidates who had obtained a seat in the previous year in any discipline not being eligible .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2005 (HC)

Ramegowda Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-15-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR632; 2006(1)KarLJ518

h.l. dattu, j.1. these appeals arise from writ petition no. 16077/2005 and writ petition no. 16351/2005 filed by sri r. ranganath and sri l. sathyanarayana respectively. respondent no. 5 in the writ petition sri. ramegowda was the contesting respondent. by a judgment dated 22.7.2005, the learned single judge has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the government order bearing no. 182. mnv. 2005, bangalore, dated 13.6.2005. feeling aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions has filed these appeals.2. the bangalore mahanagara palike is the fourth respondent in the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'corporation' for short). recruitment to the various posts in the services of the corporation is regulated by the rules called 'the city of bangalore municipal corporations services (general) cadre and recruitment regulations, 1971'. the rules contain schedule of various posts in the services of the corporation. the highest post provided in the schedule in the cadre of engineers is the post of chief engineer. the method of recruitment to the said post is by promotion from the cadre of superintending engineer and if no suitable candidate is available for promotion, by deputation of an officer of the rank of chief engineer from the karnataka public works department, engineering services. the qualification prescribed for the post in the schedule is that the candidate must possess a degree in civil or mechanical engineering or a certificate of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //