Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ779Kant; (1967)2MysLJ420
ORDERChandrashekhar, J.1. These petitions arise out of the common order of the labour court Habit, in Applications (LCH) Nos. 101, 138, 139 and 140 of 1965. Those applications were made under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the employees working in different departments of the Town Municipal Council at Athani. 2. In Writ Petition No. 973 of 1966, arising out of Application (LCH) No. 138 of 1965, 50 employees had claimed 'washing allowance' and the cost of uniform dress. In the remaining three cases, the claims of the employees were for overtime wages and for wages for work done on weekly off days. 3. The petitioner-municipal council resisted all three claims of the employees. The labour court disallowed the claim for cost of the uniform for the employees, but directed the municipal council to supply the uniform to those 50 employees. Their claim for 'washing allowance' was allowed in full. In the three remaining cases, the claims of employees for overtime wages and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ785Kant
Chandrashekar, J.1. Respondent 1 was an employee of the petitioner, the Town Municipal Council, Gokak, which purported to dismiss him from service on 9 December, 1957. He filed a suit against the petitioner praying for setting aside the said order of dismissal. In the Second Appeal No. 426 of 1961, arising out of that suit, this Court passed, on 8 January 1965, a decree declaring that the said order of dismissal was null and void. Thereafter, he made an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the labour court claiming arrears of salary to the extent of Rs. 9,498,30. By its order, dated 4 May, 1966, the labour court held that he was entitled to receive that sum from the municipal council. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the municipal council has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. Sri W. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailed the order of the labour court on the following grounds : (1) The application unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ791Kant; (1967)2MysLJ439
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. During the period between 20 April, 1964 and 1965, the petitioner was conducting a canteen known as the bar association canteen in the premises of the bar association of Bangalore. It is undisputed that he operated that canteen under an agreement between the bar association and himself. On 15 January, 1965, the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner informed the petitioner that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder were applicable to the petitioner's establishment in which he had employed twenty or more persons and that he should therefore submit returns under the Act. On 19 May, 1965, he was again informed that he should expedite dispatch of the returns and the remittance of the amounts which he was bound to contribute. Again on 22 May, 1965, a show-cause notice was issued to him that since there was a failure to remit the provident fund contribution and administration charges and failure to submit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant251; AIR1968Mys251
(1) The petitioner is a manufacturer of soaps. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he has challenged the orders of the authorities of the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') refusing him licence to carry on manufacture of soaps in the premises in which he has been so doing.(2) Most of the material facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has been carrying on the manufacture of soaps in a shed in the compound of premises No. 20. III Block, Jayanagar in Bangalore, Jayanagar Extention was formed by the Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board and was outside limits of the Corporation. The petitioner has been residing in the main premises which has been taken on lease. He has obtained the consent of the landlord to carry on manufacture of soaps in that land.(3) For the first time the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of the Corporation, respondent-1 on 29-1-1964 for the grant of a licence for manufacture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant150; AIR1968Mys150
Chandrashekhar, J.(1) These petitions arise out of the common order of the Labour Court Hubli in Applications (LCH) Nos. 101, 138, 139 and 140 of 1965. Those applications were made under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 by the employees working in different Departments of the Town Municipal Council at Athani,(2) In W. P. No. 973/66 arising out of Application (LCH) NO. 138/65, 50 employees had claimed 'washing allowance' and the cost of uniform dress. In the remaining three cases, the claims of the employees were for overtime wages or for wages for work done on weekly off-days.(3) The Petitioner-Municipal Council resisted all these claims of the employees. The labour Court disallowed the claim for cost of the uniform for the employees, but directed the Municipal Council to supply the Uniforms to those 50 employees. Their claim for 'Washing allowance' was allowed in full. In the three remaining cases, the claims of employees for over-time wages and for wages for work do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1968]69ITR159(KAR); [1968]69ITR159(Karn)
A.R. Somnath Iyer.1. The question referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire interest amount of Rs. 87,265 was not assessable in the assessment year 1962-63 and that only the proportionate interest referable to the assessment year 1962-63 was assessable in that year ?' 2. This is how the question arises : 3. By a notification made on January 13, 1948, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a land owned by the assesses measuring 20,000 square yards was proposed to be acquired, and on February 19, 1949, possession was taken. The Land Acquisition Officer of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore made an award on June 2, 1949, by which he determined the compensation payable to the assesses to be a sum calculated at Rs. 2 a square yard. He also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant245; AIR1968Mys245; (1968)1MysLJ395
ORDER(1) On 16-9-1963 the petitioner had made an application in accordance with Clause 5 of the Motor Cars (Distribution and Sale) Control order, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Cars Control Order), for purchase of a Fiat Car. As required by Cl.5 (2) of that Order, he had furnished a Bank guarantee for Rs. 2000/- to Respondent No. 2, who is the authorised dealer of Fiat Cars. Consequent upon the amendment of the Cars Control Order, by the notification dated 29-6-1965, the petitioner was asked to make a cash deposit of Rupees 2000/- in a Post Office and to pledge the Post Office Savings Bank Pass Book with Respondent No. 2 in lieu of the Bank guarantee furnished earlier.(2) Feeling aggrieved by this requirement to deposit cash, the petitioner has filed this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of amended Sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Cars Control Order.(3) The Cars Control Order was made by the Central Government on 1-5-1959 in exercise of the po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)2MysLJ395; [1968]21STC86(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1961-62 the Commercial Tax Officer commenced proceedings before a Magistrate under section 13(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the recovery of the tax still due and a penalty of Rs. 11,565.95. The petitioner unsuccessfully prosecuted a revision petition in respect of the penalty before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and so, presented an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in which, the Tribunal at one stage made an order on 29th December, 1964, directing a fresh disposal of the matter by the Commercial Tax Officer in accordance with law. Although the ground on which the order of remand thus made by the Tribunal rested is not very clear, we are able to gather that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the commencement of the proceeding for the recovery of penalty should have been preceded by a hearing afforded to the petitioner. On behalf of the State, a review was sought of this order made by the T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant178; AIR1968Mys178; (1967)2MysLJ342
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) These cases which are referred by Narayana Pai J. to a Bench of two Judges, pose the question whether this Court has the power to appoint a guardian for a minor in respect of his undivided interest in Hindu joint family property in the area of the former State of Mysore, which, is under the management of an adult member of the family. Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Central Act 32 of 1956) forbids such appointment save in the exercise of jurisdiction to which the proviso to is refers. That Section is:'12. Where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property and the property is under the Guardian not to be appointed for minor's undivided interest in joint family property management of an adult member of the family no guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest. Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of a High Court to appoint a guardian in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ110Kant; (1967)2MysLJ407
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was enlisted on a temporary basis as a clerk in the State of Bombay in the year 1944, and, according to a gradation list prepared on 8 November, 1945 of those persons who had been so temporarily enlisted, he was assigned rank 21. But, when there was a selection made of persons for a permanent clerical post in the revenue district of Belgaum on 20 September, 1948, his name was not included in that list. But it is not disputed that those twelve persons whose names were enumerated in that list, are senior to the petitioner. Another selection was made on 26 June, 1951 of temporary officiating clerks for appointment to a permanent clerical post. Seventy-one persons were so selected but the petitioner was not one of them. 2. It is seen from the papers made available to us that on 8 July, 1951, there was a representation made to the Collector of Belgaum complaining against the selection made on 26 June, 1951. The sequel to this representation was a further s...
Tag this Judgment!