Karnataka Court April 1988 Judgments

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2305; 1988(3)KarLJ151; (1989)ILLJ88Kant

Rama Jois, J.1. These 5 writ appeals are presented against the common-order made in the 5 writ petitions presented by the appellant, in which, it had challenged the five references made by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petitions. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are these : N. G. Nagaraj, Albert Sudarshan, R. Anthony Raj, Chandrasekhara Reddy and K. T. Jagadish (hereinafter referred to as 'the workmen') were workmen in the employment of the appellant. They had been dismissed from service in the years 1980, 1981 and 1982. As certain industrial disputes with which the workmen were concerned were pending before the Labour and the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, which attracted provisions of Section 33 of the Act, applications seeking approval of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, to the orders of dis...

Dr. Vithal Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs. Executive Engineer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR1235; 1988(1)KarLJ550

Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition presented by the petitioner in which the petitioner had questioned the legality of the Notification fixing the water rate payable by the consumers in the town Jamkhandi in Bijapur District.2. The undisputed facts of the case are as below: The Board constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 ('the Act' in short) has jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka except the City of Bangalore. The Act has been enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature. According to the preamble of the Act, responsibility of the Board constituted under the Act is for regulating and developing the drinking water and drainage facilities in the urban areas of State of Karnataka. Prior to the coming into force of the Act, in the towns the duty of supplying drinking water was entrusted to the concerned local authority. That duty has bee...

R. Kempanna and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR3222

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions were the Arrack Contractors in the various Taluks of the State during the Excise year 1985-1986 commencing from 1-7-1985 and ending on 30-6-1986. At the time when the excise contract was given to the petitioners, the rate per bulk litre for supply of arrack was Rs. 4/-. However, it was tried to be raised to Rs. 6/- per bulk litre and it was tried to be collected from 1-7-1985 at that rate. Therefore these petitioners along with several others filed Writ Petitions Nos. 13061 to 13065 of 1985 and other connected Writ Petitions (Karnataka Excise Contractors Association (Regd) Bangalore v. The State of Karnataka) All those Writ Petitions were heard and decided on 2nd September 1987 in the following terms :'7. Whatever that may be, as far as these petitions are concerned, all that is necessary to say is that though undoubtedly the message (Annexure-D) issued by the Excise Commissioner directing the collection of excise duty at the...

Hind Plastic Industries Vs. Labour Court and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1989(2)KarLJ141; (1993)IIILLJ624Kant

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. We had heard Mr. H. Subramanya Jois on the last occasion at length on the questions raised in this writ appeal. The appellant is M/s Hind Plastic Industries by its proprietor who was also the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 12889 of 1985. In that petition it had challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Reference No. 22 of 1979. When the petition was admitted, as we notice from the order under appeal, there was a direction by this Court that the employer must comply with the requirements of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act subject to which the stay was granted.2. I.A.I. was filed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent for vacating the stay. An order was passed vacating the stay. That order was sought to be recalled by I.A. III. I.A. III was dismissed inter alia on the ground that there had been no compliance of the requirement of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act as directed by this Court. Question of recalling the ...

M. Vinoda Rao and ors. Vs. M. Janardhana Rao and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. This is an application filed by three of the respondents in Company Petition No. 1 of 1988. The prayer in the application is to stay further proceedings in the company petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot maintain this petition under section 582 of the Companies Act for the winding up of the firm as an unregistered company and as they have not exhausted the remedy of arbitration to resolve the dispute between the parties as required by section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In support of the latter contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor, AIR 1982 SC 1302. 2. I have perused the decision. In my opinion, the said decision has no application whatsoever to the facts of this case. What their Lordships of Supreme Court laid down in that case was that section 34 of the Arbitration Act would be a bar to maintain a suit for relief against one of the parties t...

Arjun Ramappa Chigadolli Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Socie ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2270; 1988(1)KarLJ560

ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioner is one of the primary members of respondent-2 Society. There are nine members in the Managing Committee of the said Society elected by the primary members and the members so elected during the year 1987 are mentioned in paragraph-2 of the Writ Petition. According to Bye-law No. 23 of the Bye-laws framed by the Society, any member who abstains consecutively for three meetings of the Managing Committee without valid reasons, is deemed to have been retired as a Director of the Managing Committee. According to the petitioner, seven Directors have not attended more than three consecutive meetings of the Society and, therefore, they have ceased to be the members of the Society. Specifically it is stated that these members did not attend the meeting of the Managing Committee on 29-9-1987, 22-10-1987, 6-11-1987, 16-11-1987, 4-12-1987, 8-1-1988 as well as 20-2-19882. In the Special General Body Meeting of the Society that was held on 20-2-1988, which was at...

Khursheed Begum Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2601; 1988(3)KarLJ56

ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition arises out of the impugned order vide Annexure-B dated 25-2-1988 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal Bangalore, allowing Appeal No. 242 of 1984 on its file and remitting the case to the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, for consideration afresh and disposal in accordance with law after the grantee places the materials with regard to all the intermediary places on the route in question and after the R.T.A. gets a route survey conducted by the Secretary, R.T.A. in the presence of the grantee as well as the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Appellant before the Transport Appellate Tribunal).2. The petitioner was an applicant for grant of a fresh stage carriage permit before the R.T.A. in respect of the route Bangalore to Kolar on an interior route. The said application was notified in the Karnataka Gazette and objections were invited. Thereafter, the R.T.A. considered the application in subject No. 134/82 dated ...

Costa Forms Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1988]71STC158(Kar)

ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Emergent notice re. rule was issued to the respondents. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of on merits after issuing rule. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company which is a manufacturing dealer in computer stationery. The petitioner is a small-scale unit as recognised by the Department of Industries and Commerce. The petitioner imported certain reconditioned printing machinery from the United Kingdom under an import licence issued by the Government of India. 4. The petitioner claimed concessional levy of sales tax under the Government order dated 15th October, 1981 issued by the Government under section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, the second respondent, by an endorsement dated 10th December, 1986 declined to grant the concession by way of concessional rate as per the Government order, on the ground that the machinery impor...