Karnataka Court February 1997 Judgments

Deshmukha Enterprises and ors. Vs. Government of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2327; 1997(4)KarLJ286

ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Inspector of Insecticides and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gulbarga District, filed a complaint before the Munsiff and JMFC, III Court, Gulbarga, alleging that Deshmukh Enterprises is the dealer in the insecticide Anucros (Monocrotophos) and the accused Nos. 2 & 3 are its partners. The said insecticide was manufactured by the 4th accused viz. M/s. S.N. Chemical Industries. On 8.10.91, the complainant collected 3 samples for analysis. He had handed over one sealedsample to the accused No. 1. He sent another sample to Insecticide Analyst/Deputy Director of Agriculture Insecticide Control/Laboratory, Bellary, for analysis & one more sample was retained in the office as referred sample. He received the report from the Analysis on 29.10.91, according to which the said insecticide Anucros (Monocrotophos) B. No. 080 AP46 found 'misbranded'. Again he visited the shop and handed over the copy of the Analysis r...

Hire Masudi Inam (Jamia Masjid), Shiraguppa and ors. Vs. the Land Trib ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR961

G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of Bhimiah, J., dated 12th August 1976, rejecting W. P. 6933 of 1976 at the stage of preliminary hearing, has preferred this appeal.2. The second respondent alleging he is a tenant of 3 acres 35 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 483 (P) of Shirguppa, Bellary District, filed an application for registration of occupancy under S. 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19,61 (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant is the land holder. The facts alleged in the application do not appear to have been verified by the Tahsildar with reference to the Record of Rights as is required to be done under R. 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. The second respondent made an application before the first respondent Tribunal for the issue of an order of injunction. The Tribunal without issuing notice of that application to the appellant straightway passed an order granting interim injunction against the appellant. Coming to know of th...

J.K. Marattukalam Vs. Maratt Rubber Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998]91CompCas556(Kar); 1997CriLJ4187; 1997(3)KarLJ422

A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and it is directed against the order dated September 11, 1996, in C.C. No. 1254 of 1995 on the file of the learned Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings and discharging him. The petitioner is shown as the accused in the criminal case before the trial court and the respondent is the complainant before the trial court. 3. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner alleging an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act. The complaint has been lodged on the ground that the petitioner was one of the directors of the company and he was granted the premises which is the subject-matter of the proceedings during his tenure as a director of the company and in spite of his term being over, the petitioner has not vacated the premises in question, hence, the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act. Under the sai...

Gajendran E. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Banglore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(3)KarLJ670

ORDERV.P. Mohankumar, J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-A order passed by the respondent under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner runs an establishment called the London School of Speech, No. 39 Coles Road, Bangalore. This institution was started by the petitioner's brother V. T. Alexander. It has got 8 branches having 32 employees. As the said Alexander found it difficult to run the institutions he closed some of the centres and leased the remaining ones to the senior teachers. Thereafter the respondent initiated a proceedings under Section 7A of the Act and notice was issued in this behalf. The present Principal of the institution is the sister of Late V. T. Alexander. She responded to the notice and contested the claim. According to her the branches are independent; that they have no control over the said branches; that the employees of the branches cannot be treated as the employees of the centre; that there is ...

The Common Entrance Test Cell, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ459

R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. I.A. I filed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1160 to 1188 of 1997 seeking permission to file and prosecute the appeal is allowed. I.A. II filed in the same appeals praying for dispensing of production of documents is also allowed.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties all the appeals have been heard on merits and are being disposed of finally at this stage by common judgment.3. Non-Karnataka students, who had appeared in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the appellant-Cell for the academic year 1996 97 for admission to Medical/Dental and Engineering courses approached the Court with prayer to issue a direction to the appellant to allot them the payment seats available for non-Karnataka students, keeping in view the preference of subjects and the colleges as indicated by them in their applications for selection of admission submitted before appearing in the entrance test. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed that out of 624 unfi...

Neelakanteshwara Motor Service Vs. Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought the quashing of the order passed by respondent No. 1 i.e., Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. URA 400/ 87 dt. 22.3.1991 whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and set side the order passed by Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, whereby Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, had permitted the variation of the route by increasing number of trips from 2 to 4 with reference to route B.T. Project to Bellary via Rayadurga, Kanekal.2. The petitioner's counsel Sri B.R.S. Gupta, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal committed error of law apparent on the face of record as well as acted contrary to law in setting aside the order passed by the State Transport Authority which is contained in Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition and whereby the Transport Authority ha...

P. Ravidas Kamath Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1696

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court for restraining the respondent from going ahead with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet dated 13.1.1993 (Annexure-C) until the conclusion of the prosecution in Special Case No. 4/92 and 5/92 in the Court of Special Judge at Bombay. The Petitioner was admittedly working as a Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank at Marol Branch, Andheri (E), Bombay, When the Central Bureau of Investigation registered cases against him which culminated the charge sheet dated 26.2.92 filed under Sections 120B, 420 and 34 IPC read with 5(1)(d) and 5(2), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, the trial is pending. The respondent Management having waited for 5 years to know the conclusion of the Criminal proceedings, ultimately initiated disciplinary proceedings by serving a charge sheet dated 28.1.93 on the petitioner. Pursuant whereof, the petitioner filed his reply whi...

V.R. Kamath Vs. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant275; ILR1997KAR1856

ORDER1. When the matter came up for consideration on 14-2-1997 during arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that while the Petitioner is 'V. R. Kamath', the vakalath and the affidavit verifying the writ petition are signed 'Kaviraja'. He pointed out that neither the petition, nor the affidavit or vakalath indicated that Petitioner was represented by any Attorney Holder. The Counsel for Petitioner admitted that the affidavit and vakalath were signed by a different person, due to oversight. In the circumstances, a notice was issued to the Oath Commissioner who had administered the oath, to produce the register maintained by her to show whether such an affidavit was sworn to before her and to offer her explanation. The Oath Commissioner has filed her explanation by way of an affidavit dated 17-2-1997. At the request of the Petitioner's counsel, this case which was directed to be listed on 28-2-1997, is taken up today.2. The Oath Commissioner has admitted that she h...

N.K. Shah Vs. M/S Engineering General Workers Union, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2612; 1997(3)KarLJ655

ORDER1. The brief facts leading to this petition are that on 24-7-1985 there was a settlement, between Mysore Wire and Metal Industries and also the registered Union represented by its President. Cl. 5 of the Memorandum of Settlement reads as follows : 'The workmen of M/s. Cumet Pvt. Ltd., listed in Annexure 'A' shall be provided with employment on or before the expiry of 12 months from the date of this settlement. However, for the first twelve months, those workmen to whom work in Mysore Wire and Metal Industries and or Insucon is not provided shall not be entitled to any compensation or wages. After 12 months and upto completion of the 18th month from the date of this settlement those workmen in Annexure 'A' to whom work is still not provided in Mysore Wire and Metal Industries or Insucon shall be paid 50% of the wages, Beyond 18 months, if work is still not provided to any of the workmen shown in Annexure 'A' full wages shall be paid till the date they are provided work or till the ...

Wimco Limited and Another Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gra ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1997)IILLJ15Kant

ORDER1. The 3rd Respondent was an employee of the petitioner. He retired on January 2, 1984. He was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- but less than Rs. 2500/- . He was, therefore, on the date of retirement not eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Subsequent thereto on October 1, 1987, Section 2(e) was amended whereby Rs. 1600/- was enhanced to Rs. 2500/-. There after the 3rd Respondent filed an application contending that he is eligible for gratuity under the Act. In view of the fact that his salary at the time of retirement was less than Rs. 2500/-, the Controlling Authority, the 2nd Respondent herein, upheld the claim of the 3rd Respondent and awarded gratuity in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. The matter was taken in appeal. The Appellate Authority, 1st Respondent herein, also confirmed the order. The main claim of the employee was ' he is entitled to compound interest. These orders are challenged in these proceedings. 2. I have heard Smt. K. Subha A...