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 ...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)290
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is a partnership firm carrying on business, according to it, in consumer goods.2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the intimation dt. 30th Sept., 1992, issued by the first respondent under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also prayed for striking down the provisions of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act and also amendment introduced by Finance Act, 1993, and for other reliefs.3. Sri Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri Ramabhadran for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act are liable to be declared as unconstitutional in view of the fact that as the provisions of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) do not provide for an opportunity being given to an assessee before issuing an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]139TAXMAN310(Kar)
ORDERThe petitioner in this petition is a partnership firm carrying on business, according to it, in consumer goods.2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the intimation dated 30-9-1992, issued by the first respondent under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also prayed for. striking down the provisions of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act and also amendment introduced by Finance Act, 1993, and for other reliefs.3. Sri Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri Ramabhadran for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1 A) of the Act are liable to be declared as unconstitutional in view of the fact that as the provisions of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) do not provide for an opportunity being given to an assessee before issuing an intimation under section 143(1)(a) and an order under section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant381; 1997(3)KarLJ190
ORDER1. H.R.R.P. No. 1358/1994 was filed by the tenant challenging the order passed in H.R.C. No. 2948/1989 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Court (H.R.C. Court) allowing the landlord's (respondent in the revision petition) petition for eviction on the ground under Section 21(1)(p) (tenant had acquired alternative suitable premises) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.2. On 30-11-1995 this Court has dismissedthe revision petition for non-prosecution on the ground that the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was absent (the learned Counsel for the respondent was present).3. This order has been passed by this Court taking into consideration that on earlier three occasions when the case was called out the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was absent.4. I- A. No. IV has been filed on 8-2-1996 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that the delay in filing T.A. No. V (to recall the order dated 30-11-1995) be condoned.5. I. A. No. IV is accompanied by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ367
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Diploma holders, Junior Engineers of the appellant-Corporation filed various writ petitions in this Court praying for the issuance of directions to the appellant to prepare the seniority list of Junior Engineers of the Corporation of City of Bangalore in accordance with law assigning them proper rankings. They also prayed for review of the promotions ordered to the cadre of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers after the coming into force of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Regulations, 1971'). It was prayed that action of the appellant in considering the case of the degree holders, Junior Engineers for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer to be quashed. Vide his judgment impugned in these appeals, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners and the respondents therein had been promoted to the same cadre and that the appellant-Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR251; 2000(3)KarLJ214
ORDER1. A common question has been raised in a batch of writ petitions. The above case has been treated as the lead case and all the Counsels interested in the question raised in the group have been heard. Besides, thisCourt requested Mr. M.C. Narasimhan and Mr. K. Kasturi to appear and assist the Court. They have commendably discharged their duties.2. Sri S.N. Murthy led the arguments on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Vijayashankar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader, defended the State.3. The area of controversy is regarding the implementation and working of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the questions that might plausibly arise have been considered by the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Others . Yet, in view of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it has become n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1997)DMC503; ILR1997KAR1729; 1997(3)KarLJ227
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner has sought for quashing proceeding in C.C. No. 2937/96 on the file of the learned Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore. He has also sought for quashing of the order dated 16-12-1996 passed by the learned magistrate taking cognisance of the offences under Sections 498A, 302, 30-B, 506, 201 and 202, I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A notice of this petition was given to the persecution and the respondent State has filed a detailed objections. 3. The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of this criminal petition are that on 9-1-1992 at about 5.30 a.m. Smt. Sujatha w/o Reveendra the third son of the petitioner suffered burn injuries in the house of the petitioner where she lived along with the petitioner, her husband, her mother-in-law and other family members. At about 6.30 a.m. she was shifted to Agadi Nursing Home, Bangalore and at the Nursing Home, she made a statement to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2544; 1997(3)KarLJ260
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. I have heard the petitioners' learned advocate as also the learned Government Pleader. 2. The short question that has been canvassed by the petitioners1 learned advocate is that since the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences in question is one year, that the prosecution ought to have been instituted within an outer limit of one year from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. A perusal of the record will indicate that the two petitioners were called upon to furnish certain information on 26.8.82. Petitioner No. 1 sent a reply on 31.8.82 whereas Petitioner No. 2 replied on 28.8.82. The prosecution alleges that despite these replies, that they are liable to be prosecuted as the requisite information was not disclosed. Assuming that the prosecution is right with regard to the allegations, the petitioners' learned advocate submits that the legislature has prescribed the time limit within which prosecution should be instituted an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(Kar)61; [1997]225ITR471(KAR); [1997]225ITR471(Karn)
P. Krishna Moorthy, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that letting out of the shops by the assessee concern amounts to business activities (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the revised returns filed by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to be assessed in the status of an association of persons under section 26 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the rental income ?' 2. The assessee is a firm evidenced by a partnership deed. According to the assessee, four different groups had joined together and taken a property on lease and built up a structure on the same and was leasing out to various persons. 3. Originally, the assessee had claimed before the Income-tax Officer the status of a registered firm an...
Tag this Judgment!