Karnataka Court January 1985 Judgments
Canara Bank Vs. Vasudeva Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2388; (1986)ILLJ211Kant
ORDER1. These two Writ Petitions are by the management of Canara Bank, Bangalore, praying for quashing the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Bombay ('The Tribunal' for short) made on the applications presented by Respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('The Act' for short). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : A settlement was arrived at on 19th October, 1966, between the management of the Canara Bank and their workmen represented by All India Bank Employees Federation over various issues. One of the clauses of the settlement was that a workman would be entitled to special allowance if he was requires to perform duties in respect of which special allowance was provided for. One of the duties in respect of which special allowance was permitted was for functioning as Special Assistants. According to the terms of the agreement, inter-alia the duties of Special Assistants were to pass independen...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. Mysore Mineral Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3117; (1986)ILLJ464Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a Driver in the service of Mysore Minerals Limited, has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order by which he was transferred from the Byrapura Chromite Mines in the district of Hassan to Jambunathanahalli Iron Ore Mines in the district of Bellary. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Mysore Minerals Limited is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was established in the year 1966. The petitioner was a Driver employed in the service of the first Respondent-Company. He was working at Byrapura Chromite Mines in the district of Hassan. By order dated 6th April, 1983 (Annexure-B) he was transferred in the interest of the service of the Company from Byrapura Chromite Mines to Jambunathanahalli Iron Ore Mines in the district of Bellary. Questioning the legality of the said order, the petitioner presented this petition. 3. (i) Before proceeding to consider the merits of the case, it is necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalinga Shetty Vs. Krishnaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2194
Nesargi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1975 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Udupi, South Kanara, in Appeal Suit No. 7 of 1963 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 10-10-1962 passed by the Principal District Munsiff, Karkala, in O.S. No. 4 of 1959.2. O.S. No. 4 of 1959 was instituted for redemption of two items of properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The suit was based on a deed dated 15-1-1839. That deed is marked as Exhibit A-13. It purports to have been executed by one Sri Padmanabha Bhatta in favour of two persons namely, Choodamma and Nagappa. The sum and substance of the plaintiffs' case was that the two items of properties were mortgaged to Padmanabha Bhatta and as on the date of the suit namely, 2-1-1959 they had the right to redeem the properties. Various contentions were raised by the defendants. The main contentions are that Exhibit A-13 is not a genuine document and the plaintiffs are put to strict pro...
Tag this Judgment!Y.D. Nanje Gowda Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR955; [1985]152ITR618(KAR); [1985]152ITR618(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy j.), this case has been posted before us for disposal. 2. One Y. D. Nanje Gowda of Belur down, Hassan District, who is the petitioner before us, is the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF') consisting of himself, his wife and several other members and is an assessee under the W.T. Act of 1957 (Central Act No. 27 of 1957) ('the Act'), on the file of the First Wealth-tax Officer, Hassan ('WTO'). The wife of the petitioner had her own yet wealth exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 during the relevant assessment year. 3. For the assessment year 1977-78, the petitioner in the status of an HUF filed a return under the Act before the WTO, who by his order dated September 20, 1977, (exhibit-A) completed the assessment as on March 31, 1977, at Rs. 5,83,100 and levied tax at the rates chargeable thereto under the Act. On the determination of net wealth made by the WTO, the petitioner is not aggrieved. But, he is only aggrieved by the higher ra...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Instruments Co. and ors. Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR594; [1985]59STC252(Kar)
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the dealers who are registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts have prayed for quashing the orders of seizure made under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and for other reliefs. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2194 to 2196 of 1984 have challenged the orders of seizure made by the respondent, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), South Zone, Bangalore on 28th October, 1983 under section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The petitioner in W.P. No. 18923 of 1984 is a partnership firm carrying on business in the sale of submersible pumps. On 9th August, 1984 the business premises of the firm situate in Silver Jubilee Park Road, Bangalore, was inspected by the 1st respondent and a search was carried out in the premises and certain books of account, documents, etc., were seized by the 1st respondent as per seizure order annexure G. The petitioner has challenged...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Razack Vs. Kuppuswami Pillai by Lrs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2457
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. When a Revision Petition under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act'), is presented to the High Court, against a legal representative of a party to an eviction Petition, in the Court below, who had died sub-sequent to the making of the order questioned in that Revision Petition, is a separate application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party in the Revision Petition, necessary, as required by the Office of the High Court.2. Section 51 of the Act, which bears on the point, reads;'51. Proceedings by or against legal representatives :- (1) Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken under this Act by or against any person, may, in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives.(2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding would have been made, preferred or taken under this Act by or against any person such application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the even...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Ramesh Hydromachs Vs. Labour Court, Hubli and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1985
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR88]; ILR1987KAR746; (1986)ILLJ334Kant
1. The petitioner, Ramesh Hydromachs, Belgaum, has presented this petition questioning the legality of the award made by the Labour Court, Hubli, declaring the termination of the services of the 2nd respondent by the petitioner as invalid and making a consequential order of reinstatement with back wages. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 2. The second respondent was a workman in the service of the petitioner. He joined service as a watchman on 11th May, 1976. He was in continuous service till 24th January, 1979 on which date his services were terminated by the petitioner. The copy of the order or termination is produced as annexure-A. The relevant portion of the order reads : 'It is hereby informed that from today dated 24th January, 1979, your services are no longer required and hence you have been permanently terminated. As per rules one month pay (notice pay) will be given. Similarly according to rules you are entitled for following dues as follows : Rs.1. Notice Pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Andanoor Shivalingappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR936; 1985(1)KarLJ336
ORDERMalimath, C. J.1. A Notification was issued under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') declaring land survey No. 119 situated at Davangere as slum area under the Act. That Notification was challenged by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7108 of 1975. That Writ Petition was allowed on 31-5-1976 following the decision of this Court in Thipperudrappa -v.- State of Karnataka, 1976 [1] K.L.J. 417, reserving liberty to the authorities to issue fresh notification in accordance with law. The principal ground on which that Writ Petition was allowed, was that the Notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, could not have been issued under the Act, without giving a notice and an opportunity to the owner of the land of showing cause in the matter. After the Writ Petition was disposed of, a notice dated 20th October, 1976 appears to have been published in the Karnataka Gazette of the 4th November, 1976 proposi...
Tag this Judgment!T.H. Srinivasa Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2763
ORDERKama Jois, J.1. The Petitioner has presented this Petition inter alia praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue the B.Sc. degree certificate to the Petitioner.2. The Petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. By consent of both the Learned Counsel, it is taken up for final hearing.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The petitioner appeared for the I year B.Sc. degree examination of the Bangalore University in April, 1977 with Register No. 158. According to the marks card dated 20th May, 1977 (Annexure-A) the Petitioner has passed in all the subjects except Kannada and Physics Theory, in which he had secured 32 and 29 marks respectively as against the minimum of 35 marks required for a pass. He appeared for the two failed subjects in October, 1977 examination with Register No. 1714. According to the marks card dated 5th March, 1978 (Annexure-B) he passed in both the subjects having secured 43 and 45...
Tag this Judgment!Draupadibai and ors. Vs. Narayan Masanu Sutar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant258; ILR1985KAR940; 1985(1)KarLJ298
Chandrakantarajurs, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree of the Prl. Civil Judge, Belgaum, in O.S. No. 60/72 on his file.2. The five respondents in this appeal were the plaintiffs in the said suit. That suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for possession. The suit schedule properties consisted of certain lands in Bijagarni village, Belgaum taluka and certain other properties situate in Belgaum city. The plaintiffs claimed that the entire properties were joint family properties and that they and the defendants were an undivided Hindu family.The suit for partition was resisted by the defendants mainly on the ground that the properties in the village consisting of agricultural lands and two houses in the village had already been partitioned as far back as in the year 1965 and that even the properties in the Belgaum city had been subjected to partition by arbitration. 3. We have stated the minimum fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »