Karnataka Court April 1985 Judgments
Canara Workshops Vs. Presiding Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2846; (1986)ILLJ181Kant
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition in which the petitioner M/s. The Canara Workshops Ltd., Maroli, Mangalore, has prayed for quashing the order made by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, on the application presented by the 2nd respondent under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act ('The Act' for short) and directing his reinstatement with back wages, the following questions of law arise for consideration - 1. Whether without a positive action on the part of the employer, recognising a workman as a protected workman or an order made by the Conciliation Officer under Rule 62(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 declaring that a workman is a protected workman, the workman could claim the status of a protected workman 2. Whether on an application made under S. 33-A of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court could make an award directing reinstatement and for payment of backwages to a workman, on mere proof of contravention of S. 33(3) of the Act, without giv...
Tag this Judgment!Doddarajappa Vs. Venkoba Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant70; ILR1985KAR2109
Chandrakantaraj URS, J.1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Decree in O. S. No. 94/62 on the file of the then Principal District Judge, Bangalore City. Later the suit was transferred to the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City and re-numbered as O.S. No. 119/64, Defendants 1 to 7 are the appellants in R. F. A. No. 95/75 and plaintiff is the appellant in R. F. A. 107/75.2. In the course of the judgment, we will refer to the parties according to the rank assigned to them in the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of a contract. The facts leading to the filing of the suit may be briefly stated as follows :Plaintiff, in response to an, advertisement he saw in the newspaper 'Deccan Herald', made enquiries about the public auction of premises No. 74/125 (old) New No. 3, situated in 5th Cross Narasimharaja Colony, Bangalore. The advertisement for public auction was inserted by a firm of auctioneers known as 'Reliable Auctioneer' appare...
Tag this Judgment!Kempamma Vs. Sha Devichand Misrimal and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2426; 1985(2)KarLJ180
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This a third judgment-debtor's revision against the order dated 21-11-1979 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya, in Execution Case No. 174 of 1977, on his file, allowing the plaintiffs to adduce evidence to show the nature of the transaction resulting in the decree and to show that the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, (K.D.R. Act' for short), are not applicable to the transaction in question in view of Section 8(h) of the K.D.R. Act.2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the decree-holders. The Revision-Petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are thejudgment debtors. The decree-holders are undisputedly wholesale cloth merchants. The Revision-Petitioner andrespondents 3 and 4 are retail cloth merchants. It is undisputed that the Revision-Petitioner and, respondents 3 and 4 were purchasing cloth from the decree-holders and that there was a settlement of account under which the Revision-Petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- at the f...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3180
ORDERDcsai, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 198/84 of H.A.L. Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner on 24-10-1984 at about 8.30 p.m. caused the death of the deceased Gullaiah by stabbing him with a knife. His application for bail was rejected by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore. Hence, he has filed this application in this Court under Sections 439 and 167 Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.3. Heard Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State Public Prosecutor for the State.4. The petitioner was arrested on 29-10-1984 at about 10.30 p.m. The police have filed the charge sheet against him in the Court below on 28-1-1985 that is, beyond the period of 90 days from the date of his arrest. According to the prosecution, 26-1-1985 and 27-1-1985 were holidays and there-fore, the charge-sheet must deemed to have been filed within 90 days. According to Mr. Hanu...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Acquisition Range) Vs. K.B. Nagaral ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Kar)91; [1986]162ITR170(KAR); [1986]162ITR170(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. These appeals are by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Acquisition Range), Dharwad, and are directed against a common order made on June 30, 1976, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), in Appeals Nos. I.T. (Acq.) 1 and 2/Bangalore/1976-77. 2. In a proceeding under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the transferors, transferees and tenants in occupation of a building bearing CTS No. 1750/IB situated at Ward III of Bijapur city, made an order on March 23, 1976, under section 269F(6) directing the acquisition of the said property on the ground that the fair market value of the same exceeded the apparent consideration stipulated in the instrument of transfer by more than 25% which order was not challenged by the transferor and the transferee in an appeal under the Act. 3. Against the said order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, one K. B. Nagara...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Roller Flour Mills Vs. Director of Food and Civil Supplies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1505
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from requiring the petitioners to remit the difference of the cost of wheat and its products held by them as stock in transit as at the close of 14-4-1983 pursuant to the Official Memorandum dated 9-8-1982 and the telex message dated 12-4-1983 and the communication dated 23-4-1983 produced as Annexures B, C and F respectively.2. The petitioners are the owners of the Roller Flour Mills. They have been granted licences, under the provisions of Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order, 1957). The Central Government supplies the wheat to them on a fixed rate. They are required to extract wheat products through their mills and sell the wheat products at the rates specified by the Central Government. It is done in exercise of the power u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›