Karnataka Court December 1990 Judgments
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. N. Nagendrappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR426]; (1992)IILLJ168Kant
ORDER1. I have heard Mr. S. R. Nayak for the petitioner-Corporation and Mr. Mukkannappa who appears on notice for the contesting respondent, a conductor who had been dismissed from service for the alleged misconduct of not issuing few tickets after collecting money. The respondent-workman has since retrieved at the hands of the Labour Court before whom he sought to raise a dispute touching the Management's action in dismissing him from service. He had been dismissed after a domestic enquiry duly held and that was on 4th December, 1979, at Annexure-B. Thereafter the conductor having raised a dispute the matter was referred to the Labour Court. That Court disposed off the reference being Reference No. 50/87 by making the impugned award dated July 6, 1990 as per Annexure-E. The operative portion of the award is : 'Reference is partly allowed. II Party is directed to reinstate I Party to his original post with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. I Partly is not enti...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC131; 1992(61)ELT193(Kar); ILR1991KAR1749
Rama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Appeal, the following three questions of law are referred for the opinion of the Full Bench : (1) Whether it is correct to hold that as per the 2nd part of the explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act only the effective rate of duty can be deducted from the normal price and not that element of duty which is refunded by the department, the benefit of which has not been passed on to the buyer (2) Whether as per clause (ii) of the 2nd part of the explanation to 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act, the refunded amount can be included in the normal price, in cases where the higher rate of duty is initially assessed and collected from the customers and subsequently on a proper computation of value as per Section 4, the value of goods gets reduced resulting in refund of duty, the benefit of such refunds is not passed on to buyer (3) Where full duty is levied on exempted goods and subsequently as a result of applying the exemption notification, the excess duty is refunde...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarappa Vs. Mallayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1810
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The appellants and respondents-3 to 6 were the defendants in a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga, being O.S. No. 292/1971. That suit was partly decreed by the learned Munsiff. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which carne to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Gulbarga, by his Judgment and decree dated 31st July 1979 in R.A. No. 46/1979. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal but dismissed the cross-objections filed by some of the defendants. Some of the defendants have therefore preferred this Second Appeal.2. The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed: The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of a Math popularly known as 'Shri Mallikarjun Math' situate at Asafgunj in the District of Gulbarga. They claimed that the land and other buildings where the Math is situate was granted by the then Government of Hyderabad to the father of the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Hansraj Gandhi Vs. Additional Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC143; 1991(55)ELT462(Kar); 1991(1)KarLJ187
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions the petitioners who are brothers, have challenged the order-passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum dated 19-1-1985 (Annexure-A). They have also prayed for quashing the Endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 13-3-1985 (Annexure G-1). 2. Annexure-A is the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise exercising his power under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 3. Annexure-G-1 is the endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras returning the appeal filed by the petitioner before him against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise (Annexure A). 4. The facts leading to the adjudication-order passed by the first respondent, are these :- 5. The petitioners are Silver-smiths by profession carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Ganesh Jewellers, Kolhapur. On 9-5-1984 a taxi (fiat-car) bearing No. MTF 7558 coming ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Deputy Commissioner Vs. Mrs. Bhargavi Madhavan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR479; 1991(4)KarLJ740
Venkatachala, J.1. Common Order dated 26-6-1986 made by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 7214 and 7215 of 1986 at the stage of their preliminary hearing is appealed against in these appeals of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, and the State of Karnataka - the Writ Petitioners.2. Whether the Common Order dated 16th September 1985 made in Appeals Nos. 241 and 242 of 1985 (Revenue) by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('the Appellate Tribunal') impugned in the Writ Petitions, calls to be quashed in exercise of this Court's Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is the short question requiring our consideration and decision in these Appeals.3. However, as the said question needs our consideration in the back drop of the events which led the Appellate Tribunal to make the order impugned in the Writ Petitions and the events which have taken place subsequently, we shall refer to them.14 acres 15 guntas and 15 acres 34 gunt...
Tag this Judgment!Brijmohan Pailya Soni Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC189; 1994LC493(Karnataka); 1992(58)ELT67(Kar)
ORDER1. Three gold bars of primary gold weighing 2132 Gms. were seized by the Central Excise Officers on 17-11-1984 at Hubli Railway Station from the possession of the first petitioner. Statement of three person were recorded by the Superintendent of Central Excise and further investigation was taken up by the department. 2. After the investigation was completed, show cause notices dated 13-2-1985 as required, under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act were issued to the petitioners' addresses in Madhya Pradesh. The show cause notices were despatched to all the petitioners by registered post on 22-2-1985. All the notices were returned by the Postal Authorities due to non-availability of the addressees. The show cause notices were thereupon sent to the Assistant Collector, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on 18-3-1985 for effecting service on the three petitioners. The show cause notices were ultimately got served on the parties on 18-5-1985. That all the petitioners were served with show cause no...
Tag this Judgment!Annamma Vs. Pattamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1696
Hanumanthappa, J.1. The points to be considered in this appeal are:-(1) Whether there can be any order of Temporary Injunction in respect of a property wherein plaintiffs claimed that they have an undivided share? (2) Whether as per Section 6 Sub-section (2) read with Section 4 of Mysore Hindu Women's Right to Property Act of 1963, plaintiffs are entitled to Succession to property?(3) Whether the Succession should go according to the order as mentioned in those two Sections viz., by way of succession or by survivorship? (4) Whether as per Section 6(2) of the Act inspite of the words used 'male' or 'female', can it be said that both male and female succeeds to the property simultaneously or male excludes female, son excludes widow and daughter etc. (5) Can there be an injunction order even in the absence of a prima facie case made out as on the date of filing the suit and in the absence of balance of convenience? (6) .Even when it is shown that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie cas...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Rao Sakharam Survase Vs. Smt. Mangala W/O Lakshman Rao Survas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1980; ILR1991KAR637; 1990(3)KarLJ346
ORDER1. The short point that falls for determination in this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is whether in an application filed under section (3) of S. 125, Cr.P.C. by a person awarded maintenance under sub-section (1) of S. 125, Cr.P.C., no warrant shall be issued by the Magistrate for the recovery of any amount beyond the period of one year prior to the date on which it became due by virtue of the first proviso to S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Respondent filed an application under section 125(1) Cr.P.C. in the Court of the J.M.F.C.II Court, Bijapur, (for short 'the Magistrate') in Cr. Misc. case No. 97/81 for recovery of maintenance from the petitioner. After contest, respondent's petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 200/per month from the date of her application by order dated 18-9-87 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 97/81. 3. Feeling aggrieved by that order, petitioner fi...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Nayak Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1468; 1990(3)KarLJ410
ORDER1. The short and common point that arises for determination in these two criminal petitions filed under S. 438, Cr.P.C. is whether a person apprehending arrest by a Range Forest Officer authorised to arrest him in connection with certain forest offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') can be granted the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1424/90 had approached the Sessions Judge, D. K. District, Mangalore (for short 'the Sessions Judge') with an application under S. 438, Cr.P.C. in Cr. Misc. Case No. 96/90 praying for a direction to the Range Forest Officer, Udupi (for short 'the Forest Officer') to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 56/90-91 registered in the office of the said Forest Officer. It was stated in the application filed by him that on credible information that a wild jack tree had been cut and removed from he forest area in Pernankila village, the Mobile Forest Squad, Moodabi...
Tag this Judgment!Gaffar Jahangir Beedi Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR611]; ILR1991KAR876
ORDERRama Jois, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner, who is a Beedi factory, has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the notice issued by the Regional Office of the Employees State Insurance, calling upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and the Schemes and Regulations framed thereunder.2. The material averments in the Writ Petition are these:- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of beedies, which manufactures about 3.5 lakh beedies every day. Out of this 1.25 to 1.5 lakh beedies are being manufactured within the factory premises and the rest of the beedies are being manufactured through contractors. For the benefit of the workers employed in the beedi Industries, the Parliament has enacted Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966; Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1976. Rules have also been framed under these enactments. Under the provisions of the aforesaid enactm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »