Karnataka Court July 1986 Judgments
Rama Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3037
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.The petitioner is a Senior Lecturer in Physics in Vijaya College which is run by respondent-3. The Management, in the first instance, terminated the services of the petitioner on the grounds stated in the order dated 17-12-1981. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). An interim older was sought for, and it was defused by the Tribunal. There was also another Order passed by the Tribunal with which the Management also was aggrieved. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition 10571 of 1982 against the order refusing to grant an interim stay, and the Management preferred W. P. 14333 of 1982 against another order before this Court. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 11-6-1982. The relevant portion of the order is as follows :'6. When the two Petitions came up for hearing yesterday, in the course of the arguments advanced on both the sid...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Textile Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. H.R. Subramanya Sastry and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC517; ILR1986KAR3170; 1986(2)KarLJ410
Venkatachaliah, J.1. Appellant Mukesh Textile Mills (P) Ltd., the defendant in the Court below, has a sugar factory in Harige Village, Tioga District. Adjacent to the sugar factory, on the north, the respondents-plaintiffs own several extents of land irrigated by a distributor channel of the Bard Reservoir canal. The water channel runs west to East, in between the premises of the sugar factory on the south and respondents' lands on the north.Appellant stores molasses, a bye-product in the manufacture of sugar, in three tanks in the factory premises. Two of them are steel tanks and the third, a mud one with earthen embankment, is close to the respondents' land separated only by the said water channel. At the material point of time, some 8000 tones of molasses were stored in the earthen tank.It would appear that the northern embankment of this earthen tank had become dilapidated having been dug into by rodents and as a result, on the night of 16th of April 1970, the northern embankment c...
Tag this Judgment!Basawant Dharmappa Kudachi Vs. Devendra Kallappa Pujari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant15; ILR1986KAR2643
ORDER1. This is a decree-holder's against the order dated 26-11-1984 passed by the 11 Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Ex Case No. 55/1983 dismissing the same.2. It is an unfortunate litigation between three brothers. There was a decree awarding 1/3 rd share to the decree-holder. There, was also a final decree. While the final decree was put in execution, there was a compromise between the parties. The decree-holder alleging breach of the terms of the compromise, filed Ex. Case No. 55/1983 for partition. I.A. No. 2 was filed 'by the judgment-debtor No.1 alleging that the decree has already been satisfied in terms of the compromise and hence the execution petition should be dismissed.3. The fact that there was a preliminary decree awarding 1/3rd share to the petitioner and that there was also a final decree and that when the final decree was put in execution, there was a compromise, between the parties, is not disputed by any of the parties. Copy of the compromise has been produced i...
Tag this Judgment!Muthappa Vs. Malleswaram Co-operative Society
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2937
M. Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which had confirmed the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies holding that the first Respondent Society could not have its case conducted by Respondent No, 2, its Director.2. The matter has come up for preliminary hearing. As the Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by learned Counsel, the petition is treated as posted for final hearing and is disposed of by this order.3. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is :1. Whether the Malleswaram Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, is entitled to nominate one of its Directors to appear and argue before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies before whom the appellant had raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act in which the Society was the opponent.4. The facts of the case ar...
Tag this Judgment!Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. Vs. Korula Rubber Co. P. Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas450(Kar)
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by respondent No. 1 against the order dated March 25, 1981, passed by the IVth Additional City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, in Arbitration Petition No. 12 of 1981, allowing I.A. I and thereby restraining the first respondent from realising the bank guarantees until the disposal of the main arbitration petition. 2. The parties are referred to with reference to their position in the trial court. 3. The petitioner, Korula Rubber Co. P. Ltd., a private limited company, having its registered office at Bombay, is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling rubber goods and rubber-lining of steel pipes and fittings. Respondent No. 1, Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., is a Government of India undertaking and is engaged in the business of iron ore mining at Kudremukh. Respondent No. 2, United Commercial Bank, is a nationalised bank. Engineers India Ltd. is the authorised inspection agent nominated by respondent No. 1 and Metchem in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. Vs. Koruls Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant139; ILR1986KAR3313
ORDER1. This is a revision by the respondent No. I against the order dated 25th March, 1981, passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, in Arbitration Petition No. 12/1981, allowing I.A.I. and thereby restraining the first respondent from realising the bank guarantees until the disposal of the main arbitration petition.2. The parties are referred to with reference to their p6sition in the trial Court.3. The petitioner Korula Rubber Company Private Ltd., a private limited company, having its registered office at Bombay, is carrying on business of manufacturing and selling rubber goods and rubber-lining of steel pipes and fittings. The respondent No. I Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. is a Government of India undertaking and is engaged in the business of iron ore mining at Kudremukh. The respondent No. 2 United Commercial Bank is a Nationalised bank. The Engineers India Ltd. is the authorised inspection agent, nominated by the respondent No. I and Met...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.N. Horkeri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)290; [1986]162ITR513(KAR); [1986]162ITR513(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order who has held that share income of the minor children cannot be clubbed in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the Income-tax Act as there was no income assessable in the status of an individual apart from the share income of the minors ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. He has two minor sons who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in a firm called M/s. Channabasaveshwara Trading Co. He had no separate income of his own. He, therefore, did not include in his return the share income of the minor sons accrued to them from the firm. The Income-tax Officer thought that it was illegal to exclude the minor's income. He assessed the share income of the two minors in the...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Vs. Vithal Rama Power and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant92; ILR1986KAR2631; 1987(1)KarLJ30
ORDER1. This is a revision by the decree-holder against the order dated 6-2-1985 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Chikodi, in Ex. Petition No. 20/84 directing the decree-holder to hand over possession of the suit property to the judgment-debtors ('J-Drs.' For short).2. The decree-holder filed a suit against the JDrs. in O.S. 217/79 for possession of the premises situate in Chikodi alleging that the JDrs. were tenants under her and that the ,tenancy had been terminated by her. The I decree ordering eviction of the JDrs, was passed in the said suit on 28-8-82. The JDrs., being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed an appeal in R.A. 44/82 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chikodi. The Civil Judge, Chikodi, dismissed the appeal on 16-81983 and thereby confirmed the decree of eviction passed by the Massif.3. The JDrs. approached this Court in RSA 214/84. The said second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 3-4-1984 at the, stage of admission itself.4. Thereafter the decree-holder sued ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. Vs. Reg. Labour Commissioner (Central) and Two ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ54Kant
1. M. Rama Jois, J : In this writ appeal, the following question of law arises for consideration: 'Whether theft is an offence involving moral turpitude and if so, if the services of an employee had been terminated on the charge of theft committed in the course of his employment, the gratuity payable to him under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (the Act' for short) stands wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act.' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The third respondent was a workman in the service of the appellant at Bharath Gold Mines, Kolar. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against nim on the charge that he had committed theft of gold of the value of Rs. 155.61 in the course of his employment in the Gold Mines. In the inquiry he was found guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against the third respondent with effect from 18th August, 1981 fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Mandya District Wine Merchants Association
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2943; 1986(2)KarLJ299
Rama Jois, J.1. These two Writ Appeals are presented by the State of Karnataka, the Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mandya, against the order of the Learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petitions presented by the respondents holding that Sub-rule(3) of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules') was mandatory and consequently the licences granted by the third appellant in excess of the ratio prescribed in the said clause was illegal.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follow : By a notification dated 27-9-1983 issued under Sub-rule(1) of Rule 12 of the Rules by the Excise Commissioner, with the previous approval of the State Government, inter-alia, the maximum number of retail licences for liquor shops which could be granted in respect of Mandya Taluk had been fixed at 22, Appellant-3, the Licensing Authority, however, during the last Excise year ending with 30th June, 1986 bad granted as many...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »