Karnataka Court July 1995 Judgments
Workmen of Bharath Electronics Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2539; 1995(6)KarLJ709; (1996)IILLJ341Kant
Eswara Prasad, J. 1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed by this Common Judgment, as common questions arise for consideration. 2. The amendment to Rule 50 of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('the ESI Rule of 1950' for short) by the Employee's State Insurance (Central) First Amendment Rules, 1992, the amendment to Section 2(9) and the Notification dated 27-3-1992 of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation of India are questioned. Some of the Writ Petitions were heard and disposed by the learned single Judge against which writ appeals are preferred and the other Writ Petitions in which the same Questions arose were also heard along with the Writ Appeals. Some of the Appellants/Writ Petitioners are the Union of Employees of Establishments which are claimed to either belong to, or controlled by the Government, and the others are the employees or Employees' Unions of Private Establishments. 3. The validity of the amendment to the Employees State Insuran...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Bharath Electronics Limited and anr. Vs. Employees State In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC423
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. These writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment, as common questions arise for consideration.2. The amendment to Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('the ESI Rules of 1950' for short) by the Employees' State Insurance (Central) First Amendment Rules, 1992, the amendment to Section 2(9) and the notification dated 27.3,1992 of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation of India are questioned. Some of the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge against which writ appeals are preferred, and the other writ petitions in which the same questions arose were also heard alongwith the writ appeals. Some of the appellants/writ petitioners are the Unions of Employees' of Establishments which are claimed to either belong to, or controlled by the ; Government, and the others are the employees or Employees' Unions of Private Establishments.3. The validity of the amendment to the Employees S...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sharadamma and Others Vs. N. Basappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant186; 1995(5)KarLJ387
Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 64 and 65Cases Referred:Annashaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant Babusahed Patil, AIR 1995 SC 895JUDGEMENT1. A pure point of law or a situation wherein there is a conflict between two concepts of law arises for determination in this appeal. The dispute in the partition suit is in relation to a property that originally belonged to one Sakramma who had 3 sons, Advappa, Nanjappa and Basappa. The suit is directed against Basappa through his legal heirs and the prayer is for partition of the property on the basis of 1/3rd each by the legal heirs of Advappa and plaintiff No. 5 Nanjappa. I need to mention here, that Nanjappa had since died leaving behind no legal heirs and it is effectively therefore a straight contest between the legal heirs of the two brothers. The property of deceased Sakramma must be partitioned in 3 ways, one share going to each of the 3 branches represented by each of their sons. Sakramma died intestate and therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingaiah Vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2938
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant in the Respondent-Federation and was during the relevant period, posed as in-charge Branch Manager of its Gulbarga Branch. In terms of a charge-sheet Annexure-F to the Writ Petition, he was accused of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 52,29,000 and odd. A Departmental Enquiry into the charge has been initiated and entrusted to the 3rd Respondent. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the chargesheet as also the order of suspension. Annexure 'K' to the Writ Petition primarily on the ground that since the Federation has reported the matter to the Police in terms of the First Information Report, Annexure 'G' to the Writ Petition, holding of the enquiry in question will greatly prejudice him in his defence to the Criminal Case that may in due course be filed against him. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who argued on the autho...
Tag this Judgment!Gavigowda Vs. Kalegowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant131; 1995(5)KarLJ478
Acts/Rules/Orders:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Order 14, Rule 1Cases Referred:Nagu Bai v. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593;Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 884JUDGEMENT1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-1986 passed in Regular Appeal No. 29/83, Govigowda v. Kalegowda passed by the Civil Judge. Holenarasipura dismissing the plaintiff's appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 20-10-1981 passed in O.S. No. 70/78, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale-deed as well as for injunction.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the property in suit did originally belong to Bettegowda and Byregoda. According to the plaintiff's case, as the Bettegowda and Byregowda were not keeping in good health, they entrusted the plaintiff with the suit schedule p...
Tag this Judgment!Mars Constructions Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2884; 1995(6)KarLJ22
Saldanha, J1. The appellants' learned Advocate points out that appellants 2 and 4 are the L.Rs. of deceased appellant No. 3 and that they are already on record. It is, therefore, unnecessary to take any further steps. I.A.II to stand disposed of.2. The point involved in this Appeal is one of some consequence. The brief facts which are undisputed indicate that the appellants had availed of certain overdraft facilities from the respondent- Bank for a substantial sum of money aggregating to about Rs. 15 lakhs. Neither the loan amount nor the interest was paid whereupon, the Bank decided to refer the matter to Arbitration. Obviously, in order to provide for an expeditious Forum for the recovery of such outstandings, the Bank had entered into an Agreement with the appellants in October 1991 whereunder it was provided for that in the event of a dispute/difference, that the matter may be referred to Arbitration. On the Bank following this course of action, the respondents to the Arbitration P...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)202; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)676; 1995CriLJ4061; ILR1995KAR2266; 1995(3)KarLJ649
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is against a conviction on a charge under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the petitioner-accused is that on 6-11-1987 at about 4.30 p.m. in the limits of Maski at Survey No. 209, the accused committed robbery of 7 goats and one lamb and another goat, worth in all Rs. 2,500/-, by causing hurt to one Amarappa by stabbing with a knife in the location of his eyes and has committed the offence punishable under Section 394, IPC. 3. The trial Court convicted the petitioner-accused for an offence punishable under Section 394, IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. 4. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and the Judgment passed by the learned JMFC., Lingasugur was confirmed and directed the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- to be paid to the victim Amarappa. Aggrieved by the Judgments of the trial Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu Agarbathies Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2054; 1996(40)KarLJ151
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the assessment order dated 16.5.1995 made against the Petitioner for the assessment period 1991-92 and the consequential demand notice which have been filed at Annexures D and E respectively to the Writ Petition.2. Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of Agarbatties. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Subsequent to service of notice issued against the Petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1991-92, an order of assessment dated 30.11.1994 was passed against it determining its tax liability at Rs. 45,81,592.00. Consequently the firm was served with a demand notice at Annexure-B requiring it to pay Rs. 7,19,111.00 being over and above the admitted tax paid by him along with a copy of the assessment order. Against the said assessment order, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjun Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2230; 1995(6)KarLJ46
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. The order dated 5.12.1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hubli, in Case No. KLR. SR.NG.P.3 is sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this Petition.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society (for short 'the Society'). It preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, in LRA No. 284/87 under Section 118(1A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). After the Act was amended, the Society filed a Civil Petition before this Court to call for records in LRA 284/87 on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, and to treat the said appeal as a Writ Petition and quash the impugned order. Accordingly this Writ Petition came to be registered.3. The deceased 13th respondent filed an application in Form No. 7 under Section 48-A of the Act before the 2nd respondent for grant of occupancy rights claiming to be a tenant in respect of 7 acres of land in Sy.No...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Laxman Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2331; 1995(6)KarLJ620
ORDERSadashiva, J.1. Whether respondents 2 and 3 have the authority of law to impose tax/fees/cess, in respect of Cauvery Water Supply III Stage Scheme and to levy surcharge in respect of ring road being constructed by Bangalore Development Authority (for short BDA), to issue Commencement Certificate under Section 15 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 (for short 'the Planning Act') pursuant to the order made under Section 14 of the Planning Act, according permission to change in land use? is the Question in controversy in this Petition.2. The petitioner is the owner of 1 acre 4 guntas of land in Sy.No. 22, Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having been reconveyed by the BDA under an Agreement dated 24.2.1979. The BDA by order dated 9.8.1979 sanctioned permission for the development of the said land for industrial purposes for construction of a factory subject to certain conditions. It is stated by the petitioner that accordingly he was using the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »