Karnataka Court January 1986 Judgments
B.H.E.L. Employees Association Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1313; (1986)IILLJ260Kant
ORDER1. By consent of the Counsel for the parties, this petition is treated as have been posted for final hearing and I have heard the Learned Counsel. 2. The short point for consideration in this petition is, whether the Central Labour Commissioner was justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner Union on the ground that the same was barred by limitation 3. It is not in dispute that the period of limitation under S. 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, is 30 days from the date on which the copies are sent under sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Act and the appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the copies are sent. It is also not in dispute that the copy of the certified standing order dated 31st December, 1984 was sent by registered post on 5th January, 1985 to the petitioner's Union and the same was received by the Union on 7th January, 1985. On these facts, limitation for the purpose of appeal under S. 6 of the Act will have to be c...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Krishniah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1074; 1986(1)KarLJ341
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition in which the petitioners have questioned the legality of the calendar of events issued by the Tahsildar, and Returning Officer, for holding general election to Town Municipal Council, Mulbagal, constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 (the 'Act' for short), the following questions of law arise for consideration :(i) Whether the public notice of the calendar of events for holding election to a Municipal Council constituted under the Act issued under Rule 8 of Councillors Rules, 1977 (the Rules for short) is invalid unless published in the Official Gazette?(ii) If the Returning Officer is at liberty to adopt any one or more modes of issuing public notice of calendar of events including Official Gazette and such public notices are published on different dates, from which of those dates the seventh day, i.e., the last date of filing nomination papers should be calculated?2. The facts relevant for co...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusangappa Vs. Sangameswar Primary Teachers' Co-operative Society Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1095
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner has presented this Petition praying for quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner presented against the award of the Arbitrator under Section 70(e) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short).2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : The 1st Respondent-Society raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,250-09. The dispute was referred to Arbitrator for decision. The Arbitrator by his award dated 31-7-1978 decreed the dispute. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, one of the contentions of the petitioner was : that as the claim involved in the dispute was obviously based on the audit report and was being made against the petitioner who was an ex-office bearer of the Society, it could have been raised only under Section 69(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Munirathnam Mudaliar Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3433
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle registered in Andhra Pradesh as ADC 4037 and had a Special Permit valid upto 26-1-1986. It was checked by the Sr. Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mysore, on 20-1-1986 at about 4,15 p.m. at Gundlepet Check Post and seized it for the reasons stated in the check report.2. This seizure is challenged in this Writ Petition which was filed on 23-1-1986, On an urgent motion made by the petitioner's Counsel, the Petition was taken up for preliminary hearing on the same day.3. After hearing the petitioner, I directed the learned Government Pleader to take notice regarding rule and the interim prayer. He, however, prayed for time till next day to seek instructions and the matter was taken up for hearing on 24th.4. Sri Dattu submitted that he could not contact the concerned officer to seek instructions since he had very short time. I have, therefore, heard both sides on merits and considering the reasons stated by th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT299(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioners therein are the owners of Saw mills in Man-galore carrying on business in Timber. They purchase timber logs from State Forest Depots and from others, and convert the same into smaller sizes like, planks, beams and rafters as the log admits.2. The Central Excise authorities called upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be proceeded for not paying excise duty, since they are manufacturing and clearing the sawn timber and other products.3. The petitioners moved this Court with writ petitions challenging the validity of the said show cause notices. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Orissa and Ors. v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. (AIR 1985 Supreme Court, 1293 at page 1330, para 91). He has observed that the sawn timbers or cut sizes of timber are not the products of manufacturing process so as to attract the levy of excise duty.4. We have perused the judgment of th...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Veranekar Vs. Shattu Laxman Donkari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1162
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 18-6-1982, passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Small Cause Suit No. 30/81.2. The parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for possession a of House No. 685, situated at Angol-Mal Extension, Angol, Belgaum and for future mesne profits, after terminating the tenancy of the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.4. The defendant resisted the suit.5. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, the revision.6. The present suit for possession was instituted in the Civil Judge's Court, Belgaum, exercising the Small Cause jurisdiction. It was decreed on 18-6-1982. The present revision had been filed on 23-9-1982.7. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. Javali, submitted that when the suit was filed, it had been filed in a proper Court, having jurisdiction and that when the suit was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Parthasarathy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR655(KAR); [1987]163ITR655(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the parties and the questions that arise for determination in these cases, are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. In these references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether in law and on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80K in respect of dividend income from U-Foam Private Limited, Hyderabad ?' 3. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts that are now in dispute. 4. For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, relevant to the accounting years ending on March 31, 1968, and March 31, 1969, the assessee claimed certain reliefs under sections 80K and 80J of the Act on the...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Hemashankar Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Central Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant155; 1986(1)KarLJ286
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. MYN 4.5 14. The registration of that vehicle came to be suspended by an order made on 2-12-1985 by the Registering Authority and the Regional transport Officer. Bangalore Central, Bangalore. It would be useful testate that the said order came to be made on remand. The order in question on appeal has been confirmed by the appellate authority in No. RGN. Appeal 74,1985-86 made by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport. Bangalore Division, Bangalore. Aggrieved by the sarne. The two orders in question are assailed in this Court inter alia contending that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity 1) To cross-examine the witnesses though he had demanded for the same; 2) The material on which the Registering Authority relied upon to initiate proceedings were not given to the owner: (3) That it is contrary to law. 2. The e Registering Authority is empowered to initiate the proceedings under such-s. (1) Of S. 33 of th...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Rama Rao Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1013; 1986(1)KarLJ415; (1986)IILLJ152Kant
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 3490/75 filed by the appellant. 2. K. B. Rama Rao, the appellant herein, was working as a Ranger, Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 130-250. He reached the maximum of Rs. 250/- in that scale on 1st January, 1965. He was regularly promoted to the cadre of Ranger, Grade-I by order dated 5th April, 1967 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-350. He sought fixation of his pay at Rs. 270/- with effect from the date of his promotion under Rule 42B(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The Divisional Forest Officer acceded to his request, but the Chief Conservator of Forests did not agree with the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer. He was of the opinion that promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I did not involve the assumption of a higher responsibility and, therefore, Rama Rao, was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 42B(1). The Government also appears to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeva Bhat Mehandale Vs. Varada Bai Marate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1196
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Petition is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order dated 6-4-1985 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Belthangady, on I.A-II filed in O.S. No. 85/85 pending on his file. The petitioner has also alternatively prayed for issue of a direction to the Court of the Munsiff, Belthangady, to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner to I.A. II. The office has rightly raised an objection that the Civil Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable.2. However, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions contained in Rule 3A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application or objections filed for vacating the order of temporary injunction is required to be disposed of within a period of one month It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for vacating the ex parte order of temporary injunction, but it has not yet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »