Karnataka Court July 1994 Judgments
K. Dasharatha Vs. Mysore City Municipal Corporation, Mysore and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant157; 1996(7)KarLJ149
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No. R8.P.R.(A)S8-6/93-94 dated 15-3-1994, Annexure-E to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the endorsement dated 9-3-1994 bearing No. RS PR(A) 6/92-93, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-F to the writ petition, as well as quashing of endorsement dated 21-3-1994 bearing No. R8 PR(A) 6/92-93, a copy of which is Annexure-G to the win petition. The petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the first respondent to confirm acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner of Rs. 18.000/- per month in respect of (he slaughter house in Lushker Mohalla in the City of Mysore, which according to the petitioner, has been accepted by second respondent on 8-3-1994.2. Facts of the case in brief...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Workmen and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)KarLJ113
ORDER1. A joint request was made by the Management of the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board and its workmen to the State Government to make a Reference of the Dispute existing between them for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, Consequently, a Reference was made by the Government of Karnataka under No. SWL 579 LLD 70 dated 16th August 1979, to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore on the following points of dispute :- '1) Are the workmen justified in demanding bonus from the management of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board 2) If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?' 2. On receipt of the Reference by the Tribunal it recorded evidence adduced by the parties and by its award dated 27th December, 1983 held that the employees of the Board excepting those engaged at its 4 pumping stations and two treatment plants, were not justified in demanding Bonus. In arriving at the said conclusion the Tribunal found that the Pumping Stations and the treatment plant...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Vs. A.R. Vijendra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2437; 1994(3)KarLJ517
ORDERVenkataraman, J. 1. The petitioner against whom the respondent has filed a complaint before J. M. F. C. II Court, Hubli has filed his Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 1285/90 after setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 21-8-1990 issuing process to him. 2. Respondent has filed the complaint before the Magistrate against the petitioner for contravention of Rules 84 and 88 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The gist of the allegations in the complaint is as follows : Accused-petitioner is designated as the 'occupier' in respect of M/s. South Central Railway Mechanical Workshop including Electrical Maintenance Department, Gadag Road, Hubli. The said Factory comes within the purview of the Act. The repair of railway wagons and engines is carried on in that Factory with the help of the electricity...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Union Vs. Karnataka Electricity ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)KarLJ452; (1995)IILLJ399Kant
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. These three petitions involve near identical questions of law and fact and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A few facts necessary for me disposal of these cases may be stated first:The Chief Engineer (General) of the respondent-Board by his order dated May 15, 1985 submitted a proposal to the Board that Three hundred and forty four posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) be upgraded as Assistant Ex.Engineers. This proposal was made in pursuance of a representation received by Board from the K.E.B.Engineers Association, suggesting such an upgradation, to remove stagnation faced by Assistant Engineers (Electrical) who had been working as such for 10 years or more. It was pointed out by the Chief Engineer that the proposed upgradation will not involve any additional financial burden for the Board because all those incumbents of the posts recommended for upgradation had been given the next higher grade (in time scale scheme) which ...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Workmen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2794
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J1. A joint request was made by the Management of the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board and its workmen to the State Government to make a Reference of the Dispute existing between them for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. Consequently, a Reference was made by the Government of Karnataka under No. SWL 579 LLD 70 dated 16th August 1979, to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore on the following points of dispute :-'1) Are the workmen justified in demanding bonus from the management of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board?2) If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?'2. On receipt of the Reference by the Tribunal it recorded evidence adduced by the parties and by its award dated 27th December, 1983 held that the employees of the Board excepting those engaged at its 4 pumping stations and two treatment plants, were not justified in demanding Bonus. In arriving at the said conclusion the Tribunal found that the Pumping Stations and the...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Intergroup Ltd. Vs. Baldev
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2456; 1994(3)KarLJ538
ORDERVasanthakumar, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 17-7-93 passed in HRC 1338/91 by the Courts of the Additional Small Causes Bangalore on Interlocutory Applications numbered as IA No. II and III tiled by the Tenant under Order 23 Rule 3(A) 1 & 2 read with Section 96(B) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the Counsel on record, it would be proper to understand the scope of Order 23 Rule 3 under Rent Legislation in force.It is well settled that where Rent Control and Restriction Acts are in operation, a landlord cannot obtain eviction of the tenant unless he can satisfy the requirements of the provisions in those Acts. The General law of landlord and Tenant to that extent will give way to the Special Act in that behalf. It is also settled that if the Court does not find the permissible grounds for eviction disclosed in the pleadings and other materials, on the record no consent or compromise will give...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Union Vs. Karnataka Electricity ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2771; (1995)IILLJ399Kant
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J1. These three Petitions involve near identical questions of law and fact and are therefore being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of these cases may be stated first:The Chief Engineer (General) of the respondent Board by his order dated 15th of May, 1985 submitted a proposal to the Board that Three hundred and forty four posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) be Up-graded as Assistant Executive Engineers. This proposal was made in pursuance of a representation received by Board from the K.E.B. Engineers Association, suggesting such an Up-gradation, to remove stagnation faced by Assistant Engineers (Electrical) who had been working as such for 10 years or more. It was pointed out by the Chief Engineer that the proposed Up-gradation will not involve any additional financial burden for the Board because, all those incumbents of the posts recommended for Up-gradation had been given the next higher grade (in time sc...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Kuruvilla Vs. the District Registrar, Bangalore, and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant177; ILR1994KAR3055; 1994(4)KarLJ657
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This petition is before us on a reference made by Shivashankar Bhat,J., under S. 9 of the High Court Act. The question referred for consideration is whether it is open for this Court to direct return of a document to the party pending adjudication of the proceedings under S. 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act ('the Act') before statutory authority.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are asfollows :The petitioner purchased house property bearing No. 843, 15th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-34 under a saledeed dt. 6-8-1992 registered as document No. 3248/4992-93 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. After registering the document the Sub-Registrar having entertained reason to believe that the property has been under-valued for the purpose of Stamp Duty made a reference to the District Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Bangalore District for adjudication of the correct market value thereof and forwarded the original document to him along with...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalburgi Wine Distributors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: [1998]230ITR159(KAR); [1998]230ITR159(Karn)
S. B. Majmudar, C.J.1. The following common question is referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore at the instance of the Revenue.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had confirmed the disallowance, made under Section 40(b), of the salary paid by the firm to the partners who were representing their respective Hindu undivided family ?'2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that answer to this question is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in CIT v. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works : [1992]193ITR77(KAR) , dated September 27, 1991. In the said decision the referred question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.3. Accordingly, the referred common question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.4. References are disposed of acco...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Narayana Naik Gardikar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant225; 1996(7)KarLJ179
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and for quashing the notice in Form 'A' purporting to have been issued under S.4(l) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act dated 4-1-1993, a copy of which has been annexed to this writ petition and for such other reliefs as this court may deem fit.2. The petitioner's case is that the notice that has been issued to him under S.4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, for short, 'Act' does not comply with the requirements of S. 4(2) of the Act and it does not specifically mention the grounds and the particulars of the grounds on the basis of which the petitioner has been alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of the land. In relation to what is mentioned in the notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the place of grounds it has been mentioned as Ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »