Karnataka Court October 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Management of Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Vs. Presiding Offi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1880; (1986)ILLJ178Kant
ORDER1. This petition is by the Management of Messrs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited ('the Corporation' for short) praying for quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, by which the application of the petitioner made under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) has been dismissed. 2. The petition is in the orders list. By consent of both the Counsel, it is taken up for final hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Second Respondent was an employee of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him and simultaneously an order placing him under suspension during the pendency of the inquiry was made on 5th August, 1979. On 25th April, 1980 the order of suspension was revoked, but without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Second Respondent was found guilty of the charges framed against him and the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed b...
Mohammad Lqbal Vs. Bhimaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: II(1985)ACC289; AIR1985Kant171; [1986]60CompCas1094a(Kar)
Sabhahit, J.1. This Appeal by the Owner of the vehicle in question is directed against the judgment and award dated 6-12-1983 made on I.A.I. given by the claimants ordering that Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid over by the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle, as compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to the claimants.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under Section 92-A should have been directed to be paid by the Insurer-3rd respondent in this appeal, as the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident, and the award made was within the liability of the insurer.3. On 6-6-1983 deceased Shrimanth, aged about 6 years, was involved in a motor-accident that occurred at 4.00 P.M., on Gulbarga-Sedam Road in front of the Government General Hospital. The bus-HKMS Service No. MYN 3510 caused the accident, resulting in the death of the young boy, namely, Shrimanth. His father made an application claiming compens...
Indian Medical Association Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1202; 1985(2)KarLJ1
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The first Writ Petition is presented by the Indian Medical Association, Karnataka Branch, questioning the legality of the order of the State Government dated 14th August (sic) according permission to respondents 4 and 5 to establish two medical colleges at Bijapur and Mysorerespectively, and has also sought for the issue of a writ to the Government not to consider any application seekingpermission to start new medical colleges in the State. The second Writ Petition is presented by Bijapur Liberal DistrictEducational Association and others questioning the validity of the same order, but on different grounds and in addition seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to accord permission to the Association to start a medical college at Bijapur.2. Both the Petitions were heard together as the validity of the same Government Order has been challenged in both thePetitions.I. Re. W.P; No. 13463 of 1984 :3. The averments, in brief, in W.P. N...
Susanna Vs. Yeshwanth
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1108; 1985(1)KarLJ93
Sabhahit, J. 1. This is a reference by the Civil Judge, Bidar, seeking confirmation of a decree passed by him for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty.2. It is seen from the order that the learned Civil Judge has recorded a compromise petition filed by the parties and has passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on that basis. This is what he has written in the course of his order:'The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition and decree nisi be drawn declaring that the marriage of the parties is dissolved subject to the provisions and limitations in Sections 16 and 17 and it is not made absolute till six months period is over. Put up after six months.'3. Thus, it is seen that the learned Civil Judge has taken the matter very lightly. He has obviously, not attached the importance with which the Legislature has clothed it.4. Marriage among Christians is considered to be solemn and sacred. That is why so many safeguards are provided in t...
J.V. Nazareth Vs. Philomina Marie Nazareth and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant135; ILR1984KAR1101
Sabhahit, J. 1. This reference is by the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Matrimonial Case No. 233 of 1983, on his file, seeking confirmation of the judgment and decree for dissolution of marriage dated 10-6-1983.2. The learned Judge, who has rendered the judgment, in para-7 of his judgment, has observed:'After perusing the averments in the petition and hearing the learned Counsel or the petitioner, petitioner was directed to verify his case by an affidavit. Accordingly he has filed the affidavit.'and in para-8 of his judgment, the learned Judge has observed :'I have perused the affidavit.'and the learned Judge has proceeded to decide the matter solely on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner.3. The question is: 'Whether the decree for dissolution of marriage, on the grave charge of adultery, based on an affidavit by the petitioner, without more, should be confirmed by this Court?'4. This Court, by a decision dated 17-81984. in the case, P. Nirmala v. R. Anth...
Ugarmal Nemichand Vs. Second Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)126; [1987]163ITR630(KAR); [1987]163ITR630(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN469(Kar)
1. In these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as violative of article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner is the karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife, his sons and daughters which was an assessee on the file of the IInd Income-tax Officer, Chickmagalur. According to the petitioner, there were partial partitions in the Hindu undivided family on September 25, 1978, September 26, 1978, September 27, 1978, and they have not been recognised by the Income-tax Officer, the validity of which are being separately challenged before the authorities constituted under the Act. Even before those proceedings are concluded, the petitioner contends that section 171 of the Act that discriminates Hindu undivided families that are assessed to tax and Hindu undivided families that are not assessed to tax is violative of article 14 of the Constitution and is liable ...
N.S. Dhamankar Vs. Cantonment Board, Belgaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)KarLJ289; (1985)IILLJ485Kant
1. Petitioner, an employees of the Cantonment Board, Belgaum, has preferred this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking relief by way of Writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit-E dated 14th March, 1977. That order is in the form of a communication signed by the Executive Officer of the respondent Board, by which the petitioner was informed that despite the order of this Court in W.P. 863/75, the petitioner should be deemed to have been under suspension from 13th December, 1972 the date on which he was originally dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry, which dismissal order came to be set aside by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition. Consequently, he has prayed for issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to release his salary from 29th August, 1970, the date on which he was originally suspended pending enquiry.2. Respondent has entered appearance through counsel and filed the statement of objection. The facts alleged by the petiti...
Dakshina Maharashtra JaIn Sabha Vs. Rabiyabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1405; 1985(1)KarLJ57
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in Long Cause Suit No. 97/61 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli. Theappellants have challenged the order of remand.2. This appeal is against the order in R.A. No. 6/74. The Learned Civil Judge while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below, hasremanded the suit to the Trial Court with a direction to record the findings on Issues 1, 2 and 4 and dispose of the suit, as early as possible, in accordance with law.3. The brief facts which need mention are as follows : The plaintiffs filed the present suit on (sic)-11-1961 for recovery of possession, rent and mesne profits in respect of thepremises bearing Municipal Nos. 2707/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E situated at Hubli. Before filing the suit, the plaintiffs had applied to the State Government to exempt the premises from the operation of Bombay Rent Control Act under Section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (...
Ballal and Padival Tiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR752(KAR); [1987]163ITR752(Karn)
Jagannath Shetty, J.1. The following questions have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that on the death of Gunapal, one of the partners, on January 4, 1972, there was only a change in the constitution of the firm and not a dissolution of the partnership (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a single assessment for the full year, viz., July 1, 1971, to June 30, 1972, was justified ?' (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assesses-firm was not entitled to registration for the period July 1, 1971, to January 4, 1972 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm. It was originally constituted by a deed of partnership, dated December 18, 1968, according to which there were 19 partner including one Gunapal Clause (16) of the deed provided as follows : 'If during th...
Deputy Commissioner and Court of Wards Vs. Ishwari Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1423
Nesargi, J.1. R.S.A. No. 650 of 1976 arises out of O.S. No. 200 of 1971 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff, Hubli. The concerned appeal before the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli, is R.A. No. 78 of 1974. R.S.A No. 651 of 1976 arises out of O.S. No. 198 of, 1971 of the same Court. The concerned appeal is R.A. No. 79 of 1974 of the same Court. R.S.A. No. 651 of 1976 arises out of O.S. No. 199 of 1971 of the very Court. The appeal concerned is R.A. No. 80 of 1974 of the very Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli.2. The three suits were based on a similar set of facts, for the same reliefs and gave rise to common issues of questions of law and facts. The Additional Munsiff dismissed the suits both on facts and law. The Additional Civil Judge has allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decrees dated 16-4-1974 passed by the Second Additional Munsiff in all the three suits by his judgments and decrees dated 17-2-1976. These judgments and decrees of the Additional Civil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »