Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are the accused before C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C. No. 8206/1996 for the alleged offence under section 409, IPC. The Chief Manager, Chairman, Managing Director and Directors of Bank of Baroda are the accused persons. They have preferred these petitions against the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing to issue process to these petitioners.2. Heard.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint was without any bona fide reasons. If the complaint is taken as a whole, no offence is made out as against these petitioners. There is no dishonest intention on the part of these petitioners to constitute an offence under section 409, IPC. These petitioners were not concerned with the transaction as on the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, he submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind in taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be discharged.4. Per contra, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1117; 1998(6)KarLJ152
ORDERS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. In these two writ petitions the K.S.R.T.C., has sought a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate .writ or order or direction quashing the resolutions (i) Sl. No. 231/Sub.No. 349 of 1992 and (ii) SI, No. 232/Sub.No. 350 of 1992, dated 19/20-6-1992, Annexure-D and E.2. The second respondent herein, being aggrieved by the stay orders granted in these cases, moved for vacation of the interim orders of the learned Single Judge and moved in vain the Division Bench by way of writ appeal for getting the interim order set aside. Thereafter, the second respondent filed Civil Appeal Nos. 16138 and 16139 of 1996 before the Supreme Court of India and on account of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 6th December, 1996, the matter came before this Bench for final disposal.3. The second respondent who holds a stage carriage permit No. 18/65-66 valid upto 31-8-1996 on the route Kolar to Palamner sought variation of the condition of the permit by revision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
S.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. Aggrieved by the notice issued by the Labour Inspector directing the appellants to pay the cost of living allowances and Dearness Allowances (for short 'the DA') as required under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellants in these two appeals have approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 15252 of 1986 and Writ Petition No. 13415 of 1986 and the learned Single Judge by the judgments dated 15.9.1995 and 18.9.1995 respectively dismissed the writ petitions. In Writ Petition No. 7015 of 1987 the petitioners, who are the employees, have challenged the order of the Labour Officer in respect of rejecting their claim for payment of DA. The said writ petition is referred to the Division Bench for consideration along with these writ appeals. 2. As common question of law and interpretation of statute arise for consideration, all these matters are heard together. 3. Sri S. N. Murthy and Sri K. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ711
ORDER1. Petitioner, working at the relevant time as conductor in the second respondent KSRTC, was dismissed from service for proved misconduct in a domestic enquiry held in that regard. He raised an industrial dispute. The Appropriate Government madea reference to the Labour Court, Hubli, at Reference No. 173 of 1987. That reference was dismissed for non-prosecution for the default of the petitioner-workman, by the award of the Labour Court dated 1-8-1988. It is stated at the Bar that the said award was also duly published. In the mean time, taking advantage of the introduction of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court raising the very same dispute, but this time under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. It is not in dispute that this application came to be filed within six months from the date of the enactment of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 and, as such, it was in time. Left to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Kar)28
ORDERP. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. :The petitioner in these petitions has prayed for quashing the intimation dt. 22nd March, 1993, issued by the first respondent under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93, copies of the same have been produced as Annexures B and C, respectively; and also the order dt. 19th April, 1994 passed by the second respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-H, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the first respondent refusing to rectify the intimations, Annexures B and C, issued by him pursuant to the applications filed under s. 154 of the Act and for a further direction in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to assess the income in the status of HUF at Nil for the said assessment years and to issue refund of advance tax paid for the said assessment years by the petitioner with appropriate interest thereon under s. 244A of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2854; [1998]231ITR892(KAR); [1998]231ITR892(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in these petitions has prayed for quashing the intimation dated March 22, 1993, issued by the first respondent under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, copies of the same have been produced as annexures 'B' and 'C', respectively; and also the order dated April 19, 1994, passed by the second respondent, a copy of which has been produced as annexures 'H', rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the first respondent refusing to rectify the intimations. Annexures 'B' and 'C', issued by him pursuant to the applications filed under section 154 of the Act and for a further direction in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to assess the income in the status of an Hindu undivided family at nil for the said assessment years and to issue refund of advance tax paid for the said assessment years by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR1002]; 1998(5)KarLJ336
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Aggrieved by the notice issued by the Labour Inspector directing the appellants to pay the cost of living allowances and Dearness Allowances (for short 'the DA') as required under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellants in these two appeals have approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 15252 of 1986 and Writ Petition No. 13415 of 1986 and the learned Single Judge by the judgments dated 15-9-1995 and 18-9-1995 respectively dismissed the writ petitions. In Writ Petition No. 7015 of 1987 the petitioners, who are the employees, have challenged the order of the Labour Officer in respect of rejecting their claim for payment of DA. The said writ petition is referred to the Division Bench for consideration along with these writ appeals.2. As common question of law and interpretation of statute arise for consideration, all these matters are heard together.3. Sri S.N. Murthy and Sri K. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1998)ACC689; 1999ACJ344; [1998(79)FLR716]; ILR1997KAR2376
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The following questions are referred by a Division Bench of this Court for consideration:-(1) Whether the family pension is liable to be deducted out of the compensation determined in the case? (2) Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in N. SIVAMMAL AND OTHERS vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, AIR 1985 SC 106 the view taken by this Court in SMT. SHANTHA @ SHANTABAI ANNAPPA GADIVADDAR AND OTHERS vs. CHANNABASAPPA DYAMAPPA GADADAVAR AND ANOTHER M.F.A.No. 457/1993 : 1993 ACJ 850 is correct? 2. The facts leading to the reference are:2.1. In regard to the death of one Basavaraj in a motor accident on the midnight of 8/9.4.1983, his wife and children filed a claim petition. The Tribunal found that the deceased was an employee of Karnataka Electricity Board getting a salary of Rs. 1,300/-. The Tribunal determined the loss of dependency to the family as Rs. 900/ per month. Due to his death, his wife is getting family pens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J. 1. Petitioner, working at the relevant time as conductor in the second respondent KSRTC, was dismissed from service for proved misconduct in a domestic enquiry held in that regard. He raised an industrial dispute. The Appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Hubli, at Reference No. 173 of 1987. That reference was dismissed for non-prosecution for the default of the petitioner-workman, by the award of the Labour Court dated 1-8-1988. It is stated at the Bar that the said award was also duly published. In the mean time, taking advantage of the introduction of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court raising the very same dispute, but this time under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. It is not in dispute that this application came to be filed within six months from the date of the enactment of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 and, as s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant341; II(1997)DMC604; ILR1998KAR1874; 1997(3)KarLJ531
ORDERR. P. Sethi, C. J.1. Alleging adultery coupled with cruelly, respondent-1 wife tiled a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), praying to pass a decree nisi and to grant her the custody of the minor children. She further prayed for issuance of directions 10 the appellant-husband for providing sufficient means by way of settlements towards education, shelter, food, clothing, medical and other incidental expenses. On proof of the averments made, a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage between the parties was passed in favour of the wife granting her six months time to seek an absolute decree. Minor children were directed to be given in the custody of the wife till the decree was made absolute. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the other reliefs claimed by the wife were not allowed by the learned single Judge in the order impugned in the appeal. It is submitted that the judgment and decree passed against the appellant is against ...
Tag this Judgment!