Karnataka Court January 1988 Judgments

Cinema Workers' Union Vs. Gopal Naidu and Anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ193Kant

P.A. Kulkarni, J. 1. This is a revision by the President, Cinema Workers' Union, against the order, dated 3rd June, 1983, passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 2303 of 1980, dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation. 2. The material allegations leading to the complaint are: The workmen of Sujatha Theatre, of which A-1 is the proprietor and A-2 was the Manager (now submitted by learned counsel, Venkataramanaiah, that he has passed away), were not paid as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The workmen were forced to work for more than eight hours without being given any overtime wages. Their service conditions were very poor and they had no security of service. In order to improve their service conditions and to have security of service, the workers joined the Cinema Workers' Union, i.e., the complainant union. On behalf of the workmen, the complainant union placed a charter of demands, demanding more wages and better service c...

President, Cinema Workers Union Vs. Gopal Naidu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR1825

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the President, Cinema Workers Union, against the order dated 3-6-83 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. 2303/80 dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation.2. The material a Negations leading to the complaint are:The workmen of Sujatha Theatre, of which A1 is the Proprietor or and A2 was the Manager (now submitted by learned Counsel Shri Venkataramanaiah that he has passed away) were not paid as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The workmen were forced to work for more than 8 hours without being given any overtime wages. Their service conditions were very poor and they had no security of service. In order to improve their service conditions and to have security of service, the workers joined the Cinema Workers Union i.e., the complainant Union. On behalf of the workmen, the complainant Union placed a charter of demands, demanding more wages and better service conditions, The Management di...

Deepak Extrusions and Vs. J.T. Chopra, Asstt. Collector of Central Exc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1988(17)LC83(Karnataka)

ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company who is a manufacturer of Aluminum collapsible tubes and rigid cans under a licence granted under the Central Excise and Sales Tax Act (the 'Act'). Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director and a share--holder of 1st petitioner company.2. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, effected by Finance Act (2) of 1980. The relevant provisions, viz., Item 27 which stood before its amendment with effect from 17th June, 1980, reads thus:(a) x x x x x x(b) x x x x x x (c) x x x x x x (d) x x x x x x (e) Extruded shapes and sections including extruded pipes and tubes.3. The term, 'Manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) of the said Act, before its amendment, read thus:'manufacture' includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product.The Aluminum collapsible t...

State of Karnataka Vs. Gangadhar Mari Naik

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR873; 1988(2)KarLJ200

ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Honpavar, vide Annexure 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' conferring occupancy rights in favour of persons claiming to be tenants who had filed applications before the Tribunal in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights.2. Whereas the impugned orders were passed on 20-7-1976, 26-9-1979, 21-6-1979 and 6-8-1979, the Writ Petition has been filed on 6-12-1985. The petitioner has questioned the orders on various grounds the merits of which cannot be gone into by this Court.3. The short question for consideration is whether the delay in preferring the Writ Petition is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner which is the State of Karnataka. The explanation offered for the delay is contained in para 5 of the Writ Petition which reads as follows:'The illegality committed by the Tribunal was noticed at the time of reviewing the functioning of the Tribunals for the purpose of the Act. While scrutinising ...

C.M. Eisaw Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

1. This is an appeal by the surety against the Order dated 18-11-1985 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1982 sentencing the surety to undergo detention in Civil Prison for four months. 2. The present appellant had stood surety for A-2 for his appearance in the Court below. As A-2 did not appear before the Court, the bond was forfeited and after hearing the surety the Court below remitted a portion of the amount and ordered recovery of Rs. 5,000/- only from the surety. A distress warrant was issued and it was returned unexecuted saying that the surety had no moveables at all. Thereafter, the surety did not pay the amount. So the Court below ordered his detention in Civil Prison for four months. Hence, this appeal. 3. Section 446(2) Cr.P.C. reads as follows : '446(2). If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under...

Gurushanthappa Veerappa Kulkarni Vs. Parappa Fakirappa Ayathi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1989KAR2483; 1989(2)KarLJ52

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This petition under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (for short Cr.P.C.) is preferred by the complainant in C.C.No. 1717/ 1986 for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 27-6-1987 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli.2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent-accused for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner was that the statement made by the respondent-accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.In Criminal Case No. 1575/1982 on the file of the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, was defamatory and it amounted to defamation of the petitioner in as much as several Counsels were present in the Court and the matter was also discussed outside the Court and as a result thereof his reputation was very much affected as a Counsel and as a person having a status in the society.3. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on two grounds tha...

Jayanna Vs. Assistant Regional Transport Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2402

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs :'Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Order of assessment No. RTO(w) NT.II/ MEQ 5849 & 5850/ 85-86 dated 24-7-1985 (Annexure-A); Demand Notice No. NT.II MEQ 5849 & 5850/85-86 dated 24-7-1985 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent-1 and the order passed by respondent-2 in No. TAX.Apl.52/85-86 and No. TAX. Apl.53/85-86 dated 29-8-1987 (Annexure-C).'2. Annexure-A is the order passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer and the Taxation Authority Respondent-1) holding that each of the petitioners in W.P. No. 15726/87 and W.P. No. 15725/87 is liable to pay motor vehicles tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in a sum of Rs. 1,10,891/- in respect of use of each of vehicles bearing registration Nos.MEQ 5859 and MEQ 5850 respectively as a contract carriage, though registered ...

Manjunath V. Jannu Vs. Latha M. Ralkar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1989KAR2078

K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26-9-1987 passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 2479 of 1987. The learned trial Judge has rejected I.A.III filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for staying further proceedings in the suit and directing the parties to arbitration as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed.2. The suit is filed by one of the partners for dissolution of the partnership firm and for taking accounts. The first defendant is stated to be the Managing Partner. Fraud and misappropriation of funds are alleged against the first defendant. The first defendant In addition to filing the Caveat, appeared in the suit on 12-6-1987 through a Counsel and sought for time to file objections to I.A.I. filed by the plaintiff for an order of temporary Injunction. Accordingly, the suit was adjourned to 19-6-1987. On 19-6-1987 I.A.III came to be filed by the first defendant for st...

State of Karnataka Vs. Senapathy Whitely Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR879

ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 30-10-1984 vide Annexure-B setting aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, dated 24-1-1984 vide Annexure-A, which vested the 1st respondent's agricultural land in the State.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal because it held that the provisions of Section 79-B(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are only prospective in operation and do not apply to the agricultural lands held by the first respondent-company.3. The facts of the case are as follows ; Senapathy Whitely Ltd., Achalu, Ramanagaram, which is respondent No. 1 in this petition is the owner of 2 acres of agricultural land (dry) in Sy. No. 35/1 of Achalu village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk. The said company purchased the land on 9-7-1968 from the Vendor Thimmaiah alias Gettaiah by virtue of a re...

Yeshwant Vithal and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1989Kant112

ORDER1. These two writ petitions are at the instance of the tenants who held different lands of which the common respondent, a former Army Officer was the land owner. It is common ground that the land owner (R-4) who was in the Army till April 1972 had thereafter retired from the army. During the interregnum and even thereafter the lands in question had stood leased to the petitioners herein who with the advent of the Land Reforms Act, are stated to have made applications to the appropriate land Tribunals for grant of occupancy rights in regard to which a series of confrontation is on between both sides.2. Herein we are concerned with a spate of applications made by Col. Deshpande, both when he was in service and after he retired from service seeking resumption of lands in question from his tenants under S. 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1962. The first of these applications is stated to have been made in the year 1956 and the last of them in the year 1966. Deshpande, who is also edited w...