Karnataka Court August 1985 Judgments
international Instruments Ltd. and ors. Vs. Labour Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ550Kant
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, presented by the managements of four industrial undertakings, the following common question of law arises for consideration:'Whether the amendment made to Section 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963, fixing the number of holidays other than three national holidays at six, instead of five and providing that First May shall be one or the said six holidays, empowers the Labour Officer to include First May as a holiday in addition to the holidays declared by the managements even if the number of holidays already declared by them was more than nine?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:(i) W.P. No. 1771/1984: The petitioner in this petition is the management of International Instruments Limited. Clause 20 of the agreement entered into between the management and its workmen fixed the holidays for the industry. It reads:'National/Festival Holidays will be increased from 11 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of International Instruments Vs. Labour Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3648
ORDERRama Jois, J.1.In this batch of Writ Petitions, presented by the managements of four industrial undertakings, the following common question of law, arises for consideration.'Whether the amendment made to Section 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963, fixing the number of holidays other than three national holidays at six, instead of five and providing that First May shall be one of the said six holidays, empowers the Labour Officer to include First May as a holiday in addition to the holidays declared by the managements even if the number of holidays already declared by them was more than nine'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:(i) W.P.No. 17715/1984 : The Petitioner in this Petition is the management of International Instruments Limited. Clause 20 of the agreement entered into between the management and its workmen fixedthe holidays for the industry. It reads:'National/Festival Holidays will be increased from 11 to...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Nivas Mittal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1985
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas132(Kar); ILR1985KAR3091; 1986(1)KarLJ47
N. Venkatachala, J.1. By consent of learned counsel, this revision petition was treated as having been posted for hearing and heard. 2. The petitioner, a company, was defendant No. 1 in a suit, O.S. No. 3288 of 1981, on the file of the Court of XVI Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore (for short 'the court'). Respondent No. 1 here, a shareholder of that company, was the plaintiff in that suit, while respondents Nos. 2 to 6 here, directors of that company, were defendants Nos. 2 to 6 therein. The object of the said suit of respondent No. 1 was to obtain a declaration invalidating a resolution dated November 15, 1980, of the board of directors of the petitioner-company relating to issue of fresh equity shares of the company, and other consequential reliefs. For instituting that suit on behalf of, and for the benefit of, other shareholders of the petitioner-company, respondent No. 2 filed an interlocutory application, I.A.I., therein seeking the court's permission therefor under claus...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. B.K. Sampangiram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR188(KAR); [1986]160ITR188(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Central Act 18 Of 1958) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the relief under section 5(1)(viii) in a case where the karta of a Hindu undivided family has given a gift to his wife from out of Hindu undivided family funds ?' 2. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not also in dispute in the first instance. 3. As the karta or the manager of a joint Hindu family (HUF) consisting of himself, his wife and children, the assessee by a deed of gift dated March 14, 1973 (annexure-C), gifted certain properties of the Hindu undivided family detailed in the schedule to that deed of the value of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!The Coffee Board Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1365; 1985(2)KarLJ397; [1985]60STC142(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us, these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. A statutory Board called 'the Coffee Board' ('the Board') which was formerly called the Indian Coffee Market Expansion Board constituted and functioning under the Coffee Act of 1942 (Central Act VII of 1942) ('the Coffee Act') is the common petitioner before us and the principal question that arises for our determination is whether it is exigible to purchase tax or not under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('KST Act'). In order to decide that principal and certain other allied questions, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not also in dispute in the first instance. 3. On the out break of the II World War, the Indian coffee that enjoyed precious export markets in European and other advanced countries lost them and the industry was facing a crisis. With the object of rehabilitating the industry and placing it on a so...
Tag this Judgment!Neelavva Vs. Iravva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant240; ILR1985KAR3832; 1986(1)KarLJ80
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-91985 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli confirming the order dated 5-12-1978 passed by the 11 Additional Munsiff, Hubli in F.D.P. No. 23 of 1978.2. The facts of the case fall within a small ambit. The appellant Neelavva, obtained a decree for partition and separate possession of the suit properties in O.S. No. 390 of 1969. The property in question is a house in Hubli City. Her share has declared to be 1/ 15th. She filed F.D.P. No. 23 of 1978 for getting her share carved out in the house in question. A Commissioner was appointed and he reported that it was not possible to divide the property into 15 shares and in fact that the sharer who gets 1/15th share should take its value. Thereupon, the plaintiff-appellant filed I.A. VI, stating that the said I. A. was under Ss. 2, 3 read with S. 4 of the Indian Partition Act. After narrating what had transpired until the receipt of the Commissioner's report, she stated i...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Lakshmappa Angadi Vs. Siddanagouda Basalinganagouda Dharmayat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3841
Nesargi, J1. I.A. No. III in R.S.A. No. 448 of 1976 and LA. No. II in R.S.A. No. 558 of 1976 have not been as yet disposed of. One and the same person has filed these I.A.s. He has sought to be impleaded as a party on the ground that respondent-1, who has expired, has executed a will in his favour. As the appeal has been heard and is being disposed of on merits, it would be proper to decide this question at the end.1 (A). Respondents 1 and 2 in these two appeals are the same. Respondent-1 was plaintiff-1 and respondent-2 was plaintiff-2 in L.C.S. 21 of 1967 on the file of the IIAdditional Munsiff, Gadag. Appellant in R.S.A. 448 of 1976 was defendant No. 2 and appellant in R.S.A. 558 of 1976 was defendant No. 1.2. The property in question is CTS No. 6707 a site measuring 1111 sq. yards, in Gadag Town. Plaintiff No. 1 and No. 2 have died during the pendency of the appeal and their L. Rs. have been brought on record. A memo is filed today that L.R. No. 1 (c) that is respondent 1 (c) had d...
Tag this Judgment!John Soloman Gundi Vs. Sushila John Gundi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR66
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition arises out of an order dated 27-8-1983 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Cr. R.P. No. 54/81 dismissing the revision and confirming the order dated 29-8-1981 passed by the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli. in Misc. Case No. 204/79, a Petition filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) claiming maintenance against the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Petition may be summarised as follows :The respondent in her Petition under Section 125 of the Code averred thai she was married to the petitioner on 19-4-1976 at Hospet, that the marriage has been registered in the Sub-Registrar's Office, that after the marriage she and the Petitioner lived together at Basel Mission Compound, Dharwad, that by this wedlock a male child was born to them on 5-9-1977, that after some time the petitioner began to ill-treat the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. N.P. Kuvarakar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3827; 1985(2)KarLJ477; (1986)ILLJ306Kant
1. I.A. II filed by the respondent requesting the appeal be heard early has been listed for orders today. This appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of the advocates. 2. Sri C. S. Kothavale has appeared on behalf of the appellant. 3. Respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dharwad under his No. EST-6PR-95-76 dated 15th April, 1977 is null and void and for grant of consequential relief. 4. The facts found by the trail Court are that the plaintiff was working as a Police Constable. Various charges were leveled against him. A Departmental Enquiry was held. He was kept under suspension during the departmental enquiry. The Circle Inspector of Police was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his report to the Disciplinary authority viz., the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police passed the order impugned Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Plaintiff fai...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Vs. Thippanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3622
ORDERKulkarni, J.1.This is an appellant's revision against the order dated 4-12-1982 passed by the District Judge, Gulbarga, in R.A. No. 17 of 1981 returning the appeal memo to the appellant for presentation in a proper Court.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 8 of 1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Yadgir. The subject matter of the suit was for recovery of Rs. 16,560/-with future interest. The said suit was decreed. The defendant approached the District Judge with an appeal. The total amount recover-able under the decree would be Rs. 25,551-89P. Under Section 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the interest also will have to be included for the purpose of valuation to be made before the Appellate Court. Under Section 49 of the Act, the appellant will have to pay the court fee on the amount due under the decree till the date of filing of the appeal. Explanation (3) to Section 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, reads as - 'I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »