Karnataka Court January 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Sindhanoor Vee ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR114]; 1988(3)KarLJ21; (1995)IIILLJ557Kant
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. This Writ Petition is misconceived. Prayer is to quash the orders made by the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in Misc. Case No. 12/86, The order is dated 18th April, 1987. By the said order, the aforementioned Labour Court allowed the application for re-calling the award made by it on 11-10-1982 ex parte the workmen. While allowing that application, which apparently was made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has observed that an application for condonation of delay also was filed along with the application for restoration and accepting the reasons furnished for the absence of workmen, it has recalled the award and the ex parte award is set aside. Mr. Mukund Menon appearing for the petitioner submitted that once the award was published in the gazette in terms of Section 17-A or the Industrial Disputes Act, it became enforceable thirty days after its publication and therefore, the Labour Court has ...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Subbaraya Adiga
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1805; 1988(2)KarLJ69
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This petition under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 28th July 1987 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences in C.C.No. 26/87.2. The learned trial Judge has rejected the evidence of P.W.2 - the E.S.I. Inspector and Ex.P.7 prepared by him. Consequently, he has held that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused had employed 20 employees in its establishment and as such was liable to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and failure to do so did amount to an offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (f) of the E.S.I. Act. Accordingly, he has acquitted the accused.3. Sri M. Papanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the order of the trial Court and has also produced a xerox copy of Ex.P'.7. The case of the petitioner depends upon the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.7. It is submitted that the t...
Mohamadsa Vs. Allisa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)KarLJ89
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 to 3 is preferred against theJudgment and decree dated 31-8-1987 passed by the learned AdditionalCivil Judge, Bijapur in O.S. No. 178 of 1983.2. The learned trial Judge has passed a decree for partition andseparate possession of 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the suitschedule properties bearing R.S. Nos.64, 74 and 77 of Niralgivillage.3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It isnot in dispute that the suit lands in question were assigned to thevillage office. Maktumsa was the Walikar of the village. The landswere to be enjoyed by the propositus Maktumsa. Maktumsa had three sonsby name Madansa, Allisa and Mashaksa @ Mashanna. Madansa had threesons by name Mohammadsa, Hanifsa and Kasimsa. The two sons of Maktumsai.e., Allisa and Mashaksa alias Mashanna are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 inthe suit. The aforesaid three sons of Madansa are defendants 1 to 3 inthe suit. The suit was for partition and separate possession of 2/3rdshar...
Prabhat Rolling Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: [1988]69STC359(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In these two sales tax appeals, the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes was right in holding that old aluminium vessels purchased by the appellant were liable to tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The appellant is M/s. Prabhat Rolling Metal Works, Amargol, having its industry at Amargol, Hubli. The assessment years concerned are 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 and 1st January, 1982 to 31st December, 1982. During the assessment years, the appellant had purchased aluminium scrap, in that pieces of aluminium metal as also old aluminium vessels, both of which were used in the manufacture of new aluminium vessels. These purchases were made from unregistered dealers, under the circumstances, no tax was leviable. There is also no dispute that the pieces of aluminium metals as also old aluminium vessels, which the appellant ...
Patel Chandrappa Vs. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2384
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 17-9-1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhadravathi in O.S.No. 69 of 1982. At the stage of admission, Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 have put in appearance through a Counsel. Respondents 5 and 7 are neither served nor represented. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage as the modification of the decree agreed to by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 (respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal) does not affect the Appellants and Respondents 5, 6 and 7, On the contrary, it will benefit Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 6), therefore, we have dispensed with the service of notice on Respondents 5 and 7 and heard the appeal.2. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 22/26th share in the suit properties mentioned in suit schedules 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', and mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of the delive...
Management of Kushalnagar Works Vs. P. Nagaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR989; 1988(1)KarLJ445
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Management against the orderdated 14-6-1984 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.12222/1979. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has quashedthe award of the Labour Court, Mysore dated 18-11-1978 made in Ref. No.133/1978 and has further held that the 1st respondent (petitioner inW.P. 12222/79) shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity ofservice and back wages to the extent of 75% of the wages which hewould have drawn had he been continued in service. The appellant hasalso been further directed to call upon the 1st respondent within onemonth from the date of the order to join duty by giving him 15 daystime to do so.2. The 1st respondent was an employee of the appellant. He tenderedhis resignation to the post held by him on 23rd August 1969 with arequest to relieve him from his duties from 22nd September 1969. TheManager of the appellant-management accepted the resignation on thesame day (23-8-1969) and intimated t...
Shivalingappa Vs. Gouravva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1933
K.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondent is notified. Accordingly, she has put in appearance through a Counsel. The records are also received. As the appeal can be disposed of on the findings recorded by the trial Court and it lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and by consent of learned Counsel on both the sides, it is treated as being in the list for final hearing. Accordingly, it is heard and disposed of by this Judgment. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff. In this Judgment, they are referred as defendant and plaintiff respectively.2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff Smt. Gowrawwa is the widow of one Bhimappa who died on 22-1-1943. The defendant is the adopted son of Bhimappa. The plaintiff after the death of her husband took the defendant in adoption on 27-9-1944. The adoption is also evidenced by a registered deed dated 27-9-1944. Bhimappa was the owner of plaint A and B schedule properties con...
M.P. Ananthadevarraj Urs Vs. Bangalore Turrf Club Lit and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas692(Kar); ILR1988KAR3023
K.A. Seami, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has shoght for the following reliefs: 'The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honable Court be pleased is issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order: (a) declaring the Order No. FD 5- CRC 86, BANGALORE, dated NOvember 25, 1986 (anexure M), passed by the first respondent as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of section 4 of the MYSORE Race Course Licensing Act, 1952; (b) directing the first respondent not to enforce the conditions stipulated in order dated November 25, 1986; (c)declaring that the provisions of section 8 of the Mysore Race Course Licensing Act, 1952, are void, unconstitutional and violative of article 14 of the Constitution; and (d) grant any other reliefs that this hon'ble Court any deem fit in the circumstances of the case including an order ass to costs in the interests of justice and equity.' Anexure - M, ass it stood at th...
Karnataka theatres Ltd. and ors. Vs. S. Venkatesan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas679(Kar)
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. Sri B. V. Acharya for the petitioners and Shri A. C. Yadurayagowda for the respondent submitted that the matter itself may be heard finally on merits. Accordingly, final arguments on the merits of the petition are heard and it is disposed of. 2. This is a petition by accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 10 against the order issuing process against them for the offence under section 111(2) read with section 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. According to the complainant, he is a shareholder of the accused No. 1 company and he was holding 46 shares. Sri Sriramulu Naidu and his wife, Smt.Rupalatha Naidu, who were also the shareholder of the accused No. 1 company and who were holding 50 shares under Certificate No, 514, sold their shares to the complainant on September 12, 1985. On the same day, the complainant sent a letter to the company for transfer. This was acknowledged by accused No. 2. The transferors. Sri C. B. Sriramulu Naidu and Smt. Rupalatha Naidu, also wrote to A-1 on...
indira Bai Vs. Prof. Shyamasundar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1095
K.A.Swami, J.1. Both the appeals are preferred against the same judgment and decree dated 4-6-1987 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad in O.S.No. 113 of 1978. R.F.A.(F.R) No. 9060/87 is filed by the 1st defendant and R.F.A.No. 582/87 is filed by plaintiffs 1 and 3.2. The office has not registered R.F.A. (F.R) No. 9060/87 on the ground that the appellant therein has not impleaded the second defendant in the suit. It is submitted by Sri Shivaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-first defendant that the property alienated by the 1st defendant-appellant in favour of the second defendant has been excluded from the decree of the trial Court on holding that the alienation was good as it was for legal necessity. The first defendant-appellant does not challenge the said portion of the decree. Hence the second defendant is not a necessary party to the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant. In view of the fact that the appellant does not challenge the correctness o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »