Karnataka Court December 1985 Judgments
Indian Express Madurai Ltd. Vs. Presiding Office
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR525
Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner-Management has called into question the correctness of the order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore rejecting its application under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). That application was filed by it seeking approval of the action taken against the 2nd respondent-Sub-editor for the alleged misconduct committed by him, as an industrial dispute was pending at the relevant time before the Tribunal between the petitioner and its workman in which the 2nd respondent was a concerned workman.2. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was a Working Journalist governed by the Working Journalists Act and he was appointed by the petitioner in the year 1965 as a Sub-editor with effect from 1-5-1965. The terms and conditions of appointment are found in the appointment order which is produced as Annexure-K in the Writ Petition and was marked as an Exhibit before the Industrial Tribunal. The relevant ...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Coffee Ltd. Vs. Radha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR695]; ILR1987KAR543
Bopanna, J.1. There petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common point arises for consideration in all these petitions.2. The petitioner-Companies who are engaged (among other things) in the business of Coffee Curing have questioned the correctness of the order of the authorities constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') holding that they are liable to pay gratuity to its employees for a period of 14 days at the rate of 7 days wages for each of the two seasons in a year. According to the petitioners, they being seasonal establishments, their employees are entitled to 7 days wages as gratuity on the basis that they work during only one season in a year and not two seasons as found by the authorities.3. On facts there is no dispute between the parties. The case of the petitioners as could be seen from the material placed by them before the authorities is that they open their Curing Factory after the monsoon period and carry on the curing opera...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshminarayana Mining Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1985
Reported in: [1987]165ITR326(KAR); [1987]165ITR326(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act NO. XLIII of 1961) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 9 lakhs was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no direction could be given to bring to tax the capital gains in these proceeding 2. In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts that are not in dispute and found by the Tribunal. 3. Prior to June 20, 1968, the assessee, a partnership firm of partners engaged in the business of mining, held ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramabai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR671(KAR); [1987]163ITR671(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In obedience to an order made by this court in CP No. 182 of 1977, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Having regard to the terms of the will under which the bequest was made to the assessee, whether the amount spent by her for discharging her obligation under the terms of the will to maintain her children should be deducted before ascertaining her assessable income ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice in the first instance, the facts that are not in dispute and as found by the Tribunal. 3. For the assessment year 1969-70, relevant to the accounting year ending on December 31, I968, the assessee filed her return under the Act before the Income-tax Officer (Assessment), Udupi Circle, Udupi ('ITO'), inter alia, claiming a sum of Rs. 14,000 as deduction towards maintenance expend...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Walikar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR804; 1986(1)KarLJ95
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Validity of action taken by respondents to ascertain the actual caste to which petitioner/s belong as they have availed of certain benefits conferred on persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is questioned in these petitions on the ground that 'Civil Rights Enforcement Cell' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cell') has no jurisdiction or competence to deal with the matter and suffers from legal mala fides.2. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 42402 of 1982 was appointed as Probationary District Development Assistant in the year 1976 through Public Service Commission as a Scheduled Tribe candidate as he had produced a certificate from competent authority to the effect that he belonged to 'Koli Dhor community. His contention is that when Public Service Commission has accepted, Caste Certificate produced by him and has been exonerated of the charge of production of false certificate in departmental proceedings held against him, respondents cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1293
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this batch of petitions is: Whether the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (in short Act) has the power to issue a notification revising the minimum wages with retrospective effect?2. The petitioners are engaged in cashewnut processing industry in which the minimum wages was revised by the impugned notification for the benefit of the employees of the cashew-industry. The petitioners are the employers in these petitions. It transpires that there was no revision of minimum wages since the year 1975 and therefore a Committee was constituted by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act to go into the question of revision of minimum wages for this industry. That Committee made its recommendation prescribing the minimum wages in terms of the impugned notification with effect from First January 1983. The Committee, as required under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Muthappa Rai Vs. Deranna Rai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1884; 1987(1)KarLJ154
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The short question for consideration in this revision is whether the trial Court came to the correct conclusion on Issues 12 and 13 in regard to whether the suit claim constituted 'debt' within the meaning of that expression defined in the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980. The suit claim arises out of breach of a partition agreement in the following manner :Plaintiff took part of the partitioned properties subject to a mortgage under the terms of the partition with encumbrance on the property. The property so taken, encumbrance was to be cleared by the defendant who had taken the other part of the property. The defendant not having cleared the encumbrance, the plaintiff himself discharged that encumbrance and in that circumstance, claimed the suit amount as a debt arising out of a partition.2. Section 10 of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act 1980 provides for certain debts and liabilities not to be affected by the provisions of the Act. Under Clause (j) of that...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1047
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is by the State of Karnataka, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition presented by it praying for quashing the order dated 9-1-1979 made by the Land Tribunal, Siruguppa, on the ground that the State had no locus standi to present the Writ Petition.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The second respondent in the appeal filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Siruguppa, under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') claiming occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres 78 cents of land in Sy. No. 61/B of Siruguppa, Taluk Siruguppa, The applicant remained absent whets the matter was taken up before the Land Tribunal. After looking into the revenue records which showed that the third respondent was cultivating the land, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said order the State Government presented the Writ Petition befor...
Tag this Judgment!Devakka Vs. Veerappa Virbasappa Palled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1701
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases between the principal contesting parties are interconnected, I propose to dispose of them by a common Order.2. Devakka, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2066 of 1980, who is respondent-2 in W. P. No-21482 of 1981, is the daughter of Lakshmavva who is respondent-4 in that Civil Revision Petition and respondent-1 in that Writ Petition. Lakshmavva was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1957 on the file of the Civil Judge, Dharwad, and in that suit, respondents 1 to 3 in CRP. No. 2066 of 1980, who are the petitioners in W.P. No. 21482 of 1981 were defendants 1 to 3. Devakka was defendant-4 in the said suit. In the course of my order, hereafter I will refer to them to their Array in the said suit.3 In W. P. No. 21482 of 1981, the Revenue Authorities viz., the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, ('Tribunal),Assistant Commissioner, Savanur Sub-Division, Savanur ('AC'), Vatap Circle Inspector attached to the Offic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›