Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)123; 1998(1)KarLJ252
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are employees under the respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore. According to them, they are working as Medical Officer, Assistant Commissioner in-charge of Administration, First Division Clerk, Assistant Revenue Officer, Second Division Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner (West), respectively. These petitioners have been made accused in Crime Nos. 3 of 1996, 4 of 1996, 7 of 1996, 8 of 1996, 9 of 1996 and 10 of 1996, which have been registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (in short 'the Task Force'), under Sections 420, 465, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The copies of the First Information Reports (in short 'FIR') have been filed as Annexures-A-1 to A-6. From the facts disclosed in the FIR, the allegations transpiring against the petitioners are that they in conspiracy with their co-accused have given appointments in the Bangalore City Corporation on the basis of false and forged documents for mutual wrongfu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR596; 2000(3)KarLJ83
1. This petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (the Act). Respondent 1 was appointed as a Lab Chemist on 21-12-1970; thereafter on 6-9-1985 he was promoted as Chief Chemist. In the year 1986-87 as there was loss in the assets of the society, the society in its resolution dated 7-11-1987 requested the 1st respondent to proceed on leave with effect from 9-11-1987. Accordingly, the 1st respondent went on leave from 10-11-1987. The 1st respondent treating the said resolution of the society as termination without holding any enquiry raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent allowed the dispute directing the petitioner-society to reinstate the 1st respondent in service with monetary benefits by his order dated 31-5-1989. This order was challenged by the petitioner-society by way of filing a revision petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision No. 74 of 1991.2. Before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1183
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are employees under the respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore. According to them, they are working as Medical Officer, Assistant Commissioner in charge of Administration, First Division Clerk, Assistant Revenue Officer, Second Division Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner (West), respectively. These petitioners have been made accused in Cr. No. 3/96, 4/96, 7/96, 8/96, 9/96 and 10/96, which have been registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (in short 'the Task Force'), under Sections 420, 465, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The copies of the First Information Reports (in short 'FIR') have been filed as Annexure - 'A1 to A6'. From the facts disclosed in the FIR, the allegations transpiring against the petitioners are that they in conspiracy with their co-accused have given appointments in the Bangalore City Corporation on the basis of false and forged documents for mutual wrongful gains. The present writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Kar)570; [1998]230ITR622(KAR); [1998]230ITR622(Karn); [1998]101TAXMAN119(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. In the present writ petitions one of the prayers is for quashing a part of the clarification given by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, in his letter dated October 5, 1995, addressed to the President, Confederation of Indian Industry, Southern Region, Bangalore (annexure 'B'), where in paragraph 3(a) it has been opined that the payment to hotels towards banquet charges, which include catering for a certain number of people at a fixed rate per person exceeding the limit will attract the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The first petitioner is a public limited company owning and operating a chain of five star hotels. One of its hotels is situated at Bangalore. The second petitioner is one of its shareholders. 3. According to the petitioners in their hotels they offer a number of facilities and amenities to patrons such as a select restaurant, a restaurant with facility of orchestra and a banquet hall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ432
ORDER1. The State of Karnataka, along with its Corps of Detectives, are the petitioners before this Court, They have questioned the legality of the order dated 19-9-1994 (Annexure-E) passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1993 as also that of the order dated 24-6-1993 (Annexure-F) passed by the learned Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 2559 of 1992. The orders pertain to the disposal of 162 firearms and the same have been placed at Annexure-E and F respectively to the writ petition.FACTSOne Mr. Arjun Vij was carrying on business in firearms under the name and style M/s. Arjun Armoury at No. 4002, High Point, Palace Road, Bangalore. For the said purpose he had obtained licence under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Act' only) and the rules framed thereunder. According to the personal affidavit filed, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, COD in the present proceedings on 7-2-1997, the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ701
ORDER1. In this case the petitioner is questioning the validity of the Order No. LAW 49 LAC 96, dated 13/16-5-1996, communicated by the first respondent-Law Secretary (Annexure-J). This order has been passed by the Governor of Karnataka discharging the petitioner from service since he was found unsuitable to hold the post of Munsiff. It has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 6(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1976.2. Undisputed facts.--The petitioner was appointed as Munsiff on probation by Notification No. LAW 59 LAC 92, dated 7-7-1992 and was posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bellary, where he assumed the charge from 1-9-1992. The initial period of probation was of two yearsbut the same was extended by one more year with effect from 25-7-1994. During the said period the petitioner was transferred from Bellary District to Belgaum District.3. The Administrative Committee No. III of High Court in its meeting held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1160; 1998(1)KarLJ639
ORDER1. A letter addressed by the President of the Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union, one Sri P.N. Swamy, detailing the alleged misfortunes suffered by about 200 Palamoori labourers at work at NPCL site at Mallapur Village, Karwar District, was treated as Public Interest Writ Petition. Notice thereon was issued initially to the NagarjunaConstruction Ltd., Mallapur Village, Karwar, the Principal Employer, the Commissioner of Labour, Karnataka, and the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Karwar, enclosing the copy of the letter received (hereinafter referred to as respondents 1 to 3).2. It was alleged in the letter that Mahabubnagar District in Andhra Pradesh is a backward District, that there is lack of employment prospects in the said District, that 7 to 8 lakh people migrate to other States in search of employment, that these workers are called 'Palamoori Labourers', that 200 such workers are engaged by M/s. Nagarjuna Constructions Limited, the 1st respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ247
ORDER1. Chemical Employees' Association, of which the 3rd respondent Narayanan is a member, has raised an industrial dispute in respect of the termination of the services of respondent 3 by the petitioner. The Government of Karnataka, by the order at Annexure-A dated 13-11-1987, in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made a reference to the Labour Court, Bangalore. On several grounds, one of which being that the Government of Karnataka is not the appropriate Government to make that reference, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said reference under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner had appointed respondent 3 Narayanan as Sales Supervisor, and he was assigned the territory of part of Karnataka vested with the powers of supervision and control of a number of Salesmen working under him. The services of respondent 3 came to be terminated vide Annexure-D dated 14-8-1985 which was passed at Bombay and communicated at Bombay- Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Chemical Employees' Association, of which the 3rd respondent Narayanan is a member, has raised an industrial dispute in respect of the termination of the services of respondent 3 by the petitioner. The Government of Karnataka, by the order at Annexure-A dated November 13, 1987, in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made a reference to the Labour Court, Bangalore. On several grounds, one of which being that the Government of Karnataka is not the appropriate Government to make that reference, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said reference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner had appointed respondent 3 Narayanan as Sales Supervisor, and he was assigned the territory of part of Karnataka vested with the powers of supervision and control of a number of Salesmen working under him. The services of respondent 3 came to be terminated vide Annexure-D dated August 14, 1985 which was passed at Bombay and communicated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1917; 1997(3)KarLJ474
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. This revision is filed against the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH.5), Bangalore, permitting the petitioner in H.R.C. No. 1212 of 1994 to produce documents and recalling P.W.1 for further evidence.The contentions taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner are:(1) His objections to recalling P.W.1 and production of documents were not at all considered by the Court below; (2) The order of the Court below does not satisfy the requirements of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure; (3) The provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have been invoked; and (4) When arguments are over, documents cannot be produced. I have given the Learned Counsel for the petitioner sufficient opportunity to explain the prejudice that may be caused to his client if the petitioner in H.R.C. No. 1212 of the 1994 is permitted to produce documents and if P.W.1 is recalled for further evidence. He is not ab...
Tag this Judgment!