Karnataka Court June 1997 Judgments

T. Govindappa Setty Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

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....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sharada Adyanthaya and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1(1998)ACC296

P. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the Award in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The first respondent-claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the daughter of one Meenakshi. On 17.1.1980, at about 7.45 p.m., while Meenakshi alongwith one Devaki was going along the Court Road, Udupi, an Auto rickshaw, bearing Regn. No. MYX 7195 driven by the second respondent and owned by respondent No. 3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Meenakshi and Devaki. Meenakshi sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and later she succumbed to the injuries. An application for compensation was filed by the first respondent alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent. Earlier to this application, one Devi Prasad Shetty s/o the deceased Meenakshi, had filed an application for compensation on account of the death of his mother Meenakshi. After...

Krishna Flour Mills and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka a ...

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...

N.M. Naik Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and anr.

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...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kalinadi Project, Dandeli Vs. So ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR433; 2000(3)KarLJ62

ORDER1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, this C.R.P. has been taken up for final disposal and the same is accordingly disposed of by this order.2. It appears that a petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act was presented before the reference Court by an Advocate appearing for the petitioner praying to direct the opponent (petitioner herein) to refer the case to the Reference Court for adjudication regarding enhancement of compensation. The said petition filed on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Counsel was duly examined and registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge at Karwar. It appears that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also filed vakalat for the party. After the respondent entered appearance, he took exception to the application stating that the petition is not signed by the party but the same has been signed by the Advocate appearing for the party. The Court...

Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Acce, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(59)ECC243; 1998(97)ELT57(Kar)

ORDERShri Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of mandamus the petitioner seeks a direction against the Respondent to pass an order of adjudication pursuant to the classification list dated 1.1.1989 filed by it in the prescribed form. The controversy arises in the following backdrop :- 1.1. The Petitioner is a Statutory Body constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and engaged in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity within the State of Karnataka. It has established Workshops among other places at Mandya and Bangalore in which it fabricates certain items such as 2 pin cross arms, 3 pin cross arms, 4 pin cross arms, fish plates, PCC Pole clamps, RCC Pole clamps, DP sets, Earth guard stirrups, etc., used exclusively in the electricity transmission and distribution network established by the Board. A classification list effective from 1.1.1989 was filed by the petitioner before the Respondent-Assistant Commissioner Collector (sic) of Central Exc...

J.R. Ramamurthy Vs. Kannada Vishwavidyalaya, Hampi and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2158

ORDER1. These three petitions could be disposed of by a common order, since the parties involved in these three petitions are common and the basic issue involved is the correctness or otherwise of domestic enquiry proceedings against the petitioner by his employer.2. One Sri J.R. Rama Murthy, Chief Librarian, who was working in Kannada Viswavidyalaya, Hampi, Bellary District, questions the legality or otherwise of initiation of domestic enquiry proceedings by the Registrar of the University at the behest of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The action of the Vice-Chancellor is questioned on the ground that under the Kannada University Act, the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction and authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against staff and non-staff members of the University. Secondly, the action is arbitrary, capricious and without just cause. Lastly, on the ground that the charges in the charge memo served on the petitioner are vague and therefore there was no reasonable ...

N.M. Subhas Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ376

ORDER1. The petitioner who is presently posted as Divisional Security Officer with the respondent-Corporation in this petition has prayed to:(i) strike down the provisions of Cadre, Recruitment, Probation and Promotion Rules of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, 1992 published by Standing Regulation No. SR 044, dated 31-3-1992 (Annexure-F) insofar as it pertains to the method of appointment and conditions of appointment to the post CVO; (ii) direct the respondent-Corporation to suitably amend the CRPP Rules of KPC Limited, 1992 making provision for filling the post of CVO by promotion from the post of DSO failing which by deputation of an officer from the State Police Service; and. . . 2. To support his case the petitioner has submitted that in case appropriate directions are not issued there would be stagnation as he would not be further promoted under the prevalent rules of the respondent-Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Commissioned Offi...

A.C. Siddappa Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR880

ORDERChandrashekariah, J.1. The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions by way of public interest litigation. 2. The land in Sy. No. 27 of Koudenahalli village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is classified as a tank as per the Revenue Records. The 5th respondent moved the State Government for grant of 10 acres out of the Total extent of 24 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No. 27 of Koudenahalli village. On the said application, the Government accorded approval to grant this land in favour of the 5th respondent by its order dated 25.11.88. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 6.1.89 levied the conversion fee to use the said land for non-agricultural purpose. On the basis of this order, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition assuming that there is a grant in favour of the 5th respondent, challenging the grant, if any, in favour of the 5th respondent. 3. The records produced before me show that this land is classified as a tank as per the entries in the re...

Mypower Mazdoor Welfare Union Vs. the Secretary and Commissioner and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1742]; ILR1997KAR2071

R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The scope of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') in relation to the powers of the appropriate Government of making reference to Labour Court, Board or Tribunal, is sought to be settled in this appeal. Does the Government have the powers to determine the merits of the claim of the workmen before making reference or is it obligatory upon the Government to make a reference where a primafacie dispute is shown to be in existence? The learned Judge, vide the order impugned in this appeal held that the nature and scope of the scrutiny envisaged under Section 10 authorised the Government to examine the merits of the claim and decline to make a reference upon being satisfied that the grievance projected was baseless, without substance, frivolous or unjustified.2. In order to appreciate the controversy regarding the scope and ambit of Section 10 of the Act, some of the facts which are not in dispute are required to be taken note of. The app...