Karnataka Court April 1986 Judgments
Sir M. Visweswaraya Education Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3095
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. A registered trust called 'Sir M.Visveswaraya Education Trust' with its office at No. 45 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore-560 052 named after that renowned Engineer, Statesman, Administrator and one of the illustrious Diwans of erstwhile native State of Mysore who was born in a village called Muddenahalli of Kolar District is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15793 of 1985 and we-will hereafter refer to the same as 'Sir M. V. Trust' or as the Petitioner. While the mother-tongue of Sir M. Visveswaraya was Kannada, though his forefathers migrated from a village called Mokshagundam situated in the Kurnool District of the present State of Andhra Pradesh, the language of the State, the trust named after him somewhat intriguingly claims to have been founded by linguistic minorities probably on the ground that those who have founded the trust ...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Workers' Union Vs. Foo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ407Kant
ORDER1. The Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Workers Union (in short the Union) representing the workmen employed by Respondent-2, Labour Contractor of Respondent-1/Food Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) in retrenching 450 workmen who have been working continuously and rendering services to the Corporation for several years in its various Godowns and Railheads in Bangalore District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory being opposed to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 of the Constitution and for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Corporation not to retrench the aforesaid workers without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25(N) and (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the I.D. Act) and for other incidental reliefs. 2. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing I made an interim order on 13th March, 1986 directing the 3rd respondent, Labour Contractor, to provide for the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Fci Loading and Unloading Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-25-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2579
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The Food Corporation of India Loading & Unloading Workers Union (in short the Union) representing the workmen employed by Respondent-2, Labour Contractor of Respondent-1/Food Corporation of India, has filed this petition for a declaration that the action of the Food Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) in retrenching 450 workmen who have been working continuously and rendering services to the Corporation for several years in its various Godowns and Railheads in Bangalore District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory being opposed to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 of the Constitution and for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Corporation not to retrench the aforesaid workers without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25(N) and (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the I. D. Act) and for other incidental reliefs.2. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing I made an inte...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Vegetable Products P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant113; [1989]65CompCas134(Kar)
1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: '(a) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be, directing the first respondent to amend the Industrial Licence No. L/No. 28 (2)/N-12/70, dated December 14, 1970, for the manufacture of 50 tonnes of vanaspati per day be entering the name of the petitioner as owner of the said manufacturing plant forthwith or with such time as this hon'ble court might deem fit and to return the same to the petitioner; (b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be directing the second respondent to supply the prescribed quota of imported oil required for the manufacture of vanaspati at the manufacturing unit at Sitapur, Uttar Prades, run by the petitioner company due from January 30, 1976, upto date and also to direct him to allot the prescribed quota hereafter and also to allot the prescribed quota of coal and other r...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1536
ORDER1. In this petition under Art, 220 of the Constitution. the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :-a) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be. directing the 1st respondent .to amend the Industrial Licence No. L/No. 28 (2) ' N-12/70 Dt. 14-12-1970 for the manufacture ' of 50 tonnes of Vanaspati per day by entering the name of the petitioner as owner of the said manufacture plant forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble Court might deem fit and to return the same to the petitioner: b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be directing the 2nd respondent to supply the prescribed quota of Imported oil required for the manufacture of Vanaspati at the manufacturing unit at Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh. run by the petitioner company due from 30th Jan. 1976 up to date and also to direct him to allot the prescribed quota hereafter and also to allot the prescribed quota of coal and other raw materials r...
Tag this Judgment!Varada Bai Vs. Mahadeva Mahendale
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2277
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.Respondent-1 has filed Original Suit No. 41 of 1976 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Puttur, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 and another for possession of the plaint schedule properties and for past and further mesne profits. He has based his right on the basis of the will executed by his mother. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Petitioner No. 1 and defendants 3 to 5 are the sisters of the 1st respondent. Original Will is not produced. The suit is decreed, on the basis of the alleged true copy of the Will dated 29-4-1966 (Exhibit-P5), in the following terms:'The suit is decreed. Defendants 1 and 2 are directed to put the plaintiff in possession of item-1 of the plaint A Schedule immovable properties and such of the movable properties as are in existence in the Thamankar house in the suit properties. The plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount payable under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in re...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner Vs. Chandasaheb Mohaddinsab Mujawar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2151
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Shri I.G. Gachchinamath for respondent-1 has filed two copy applications in C.R.Nos. 743 and 4951 of 1986 praying for issue of the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in the present appeal M.F.A.No. 2100 of 1983-on 8-1-1986. The office has made a note that the order dated 8-1-1986 was recalled by us on 17-1-1986. The office has also sought for a direction as to whether the certified copy of the order dated 8-1-1986 could be issued when the said order is not on the file and in the records.2. Heard Shri I.G.Gachchinamath who has applied for certified copies and also the learned Government Advocate Shri Hiremath in the matter.3. M.F.A. No. 2100 of 1983 had come up before us for hearing on 7-1-1986. On that day arguments were heard in part and the matter was adjourned for further hearing to 8-1-1986. On 8-1-1986 arguments of all the advocates appearing for all the parties were completed and an order was dictated to the Stenographer in the open Court dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Khalilur Rahman Vs. Md. Fazlur Rahman
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2115
Nesargi, J.1. Respondent-1 - plaintiff filed the suit on 15-11-1967 praying for a decree that he is entitled to 7/44th share in all the suit properties and for directing the present appellants who were defendants 1 to 3 in the suit to pay his share of the mesne profits for the past three years from 1-9-1964 amounting to Rs. 1260/- and also requesting for a direction to hold an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding future mesne profits.2. Originally there were seven defendants. Defendant-4 is the mother of defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff. Respondent-2 who has died during the pendency of this second appeal, is defendant-4. Respondents-3 to 5 are defendants 5 to 7. They are the daughters of defendant-4.3. The suit properties consist of ten items. The two Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff in regard to items 1, 2 and 9. Exhibit P1 dated 25-3-1953 is the settlement deed executed by Mohamad Ummar Saheb, father of the appellants-defendants-1 t...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. T. Basappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas68(Kar); ILR1986KAR3015
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2986 of 1985 is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 28, 1985, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga, in R.A.No. 158 of 1980 affirming the judgment and decree dated September 9, 1980, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga, in O.S. No. 517 of 1979, dismissing the suit against defendant No. 2. 2. Regular Second Appeal No. 563 of 1985 by the plaintiff-bank is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1985, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga, in R.A. No. 170 of 1980 reversing the judgment and decree dated October 31, 1980, passed by the Additional Munsiff, Shimoga, in O.S. No. 516 of 1979, decreeing the suit against all the defendants. 3. It is undisputed that the principal debtor in both the cases had borrowed the money and he and one surety have signed the acknowledgment on the suit documents. It is undisputed that the surety, Ananthapadmanabha ,in both the cases has not signed the acknow...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2183; (1987)ILLJ182Kant
ORDER1. This is the third round of litigation between the industries covered by the Minimum Wages Act and the workmen who are the employees in the said industries and I am not so sure that this will be the final round of litigation between the parties. The petitioners have questioned the validity of the Minimum Wages Notifications notified by the State Government in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20th March, 1986 fixing certain rates of Minimum wages to the workmen employed in the Film Industry, Hotel Industry, Printing Industry, Tailoring, Plywood and other industries. These Notifications admittedly were made by the State Government pursuant to the order of this Court in the earlier batch of Writ Petitions filed by the very same employers and also by the workmen employed in the Hotel Industries challenging the validity of the Notifications made in the year 1984 fixing certain rates of minimum wages in the aforesaid industries. Those Writ Petitions were partly allowed by this Court by its...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »