Karnataka Court February 1998 Judgments
M/S. Triton Valves Limited, Mysore Vs. the Labour Court, Mysore and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR577]; 1998(3)KarLJ681; (1999)ILLJ775Kant
ORDER1. The learned High Court Government Advocate takes notice for 1st respondent. 2nd respondent appears in person.2. By consent of both sides, the matter is heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage. 3. The petitioner-employer manufactures valves, and the 2nd respondent-workman, a Science Graduate, had been working as a Quality Assistant. 4. The 2nd respondent-workman is now dismissed from service. The order of dismissal had been preceded by four separate enquiries in respect of four different charges, in all of which, the workman was found guilty. The disciplinary authority, having accepted the said findings on proof of charge, has passed the order of dismissal. In that regard, the 2nd respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Mysore, by filing an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). On the preliminary questions as to validity of the domestic enquiries, the Labour Court, by its order date...
Tag this Judgment!Vadde Sanna Hulugappa and Others Vs. Vadde Sanna Hulufappa (Deceased) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant325; ILR1998KAR2127; 1998(4)KarLJ365
1. The appellants in this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC are the plaintiffs. The present respondents are the defendants. The first respondent-first defendant, who is the contesting party, is since deceased and his L.Rs have been brought on record.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 32 of 1982 before the Principal Munsiff, Bellary, for partition and separate possession of their 2/3 share in the suit schedule property bearing D. No. 64, Ward No. XIV situated within the municipal limits of Bellary city. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for partition.3. The plaintiffs filed appeal in R.A. No. 17 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bellary.4. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by its judgment dated 12-6-1991, i.e., the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff.5. At the outset it should be observed that both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to % shar...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Subba Jetty Vs. T.R. Narasimha Jetty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ484
1. Heard both the Counsels. The appellant is the first defendant. Respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2 to 4. Respondent 1 is the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed the Suit O.S. No. 98 of 1989 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties (three items), viz.,3. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the plaintiff 1/2 share in the suit properties.[4. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the plaintiff half share in the suit properties.]5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5-4-1990 passed by the learned Munsiff, the first defendant filed appeal in R.A. No. 34 of 1990 before the Civil Judge, Holenarasipura.6. The learned first appellate Judge by his judgment dated 16-3-1992 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of first instance.7. The first defendant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.8. First plaintiff-T.R. Narasimhajetty and first defendant-T.R. Subbajetty are brother...
Tag this Judgment!Y.M. Mahadevappa Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2507
ORDERB.K. Sangalad, J.1. Petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit under permit No. 10/80-81 valid on route Kollegal to K.R. Sagar and back to perform two round trips per day. The said permit was granted under the old Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. The last renewal was granted on 30.12.1995 and it is valid from that date to 30-12-2000. The said renewal is endorsed in the permit in No. RTA.I.SCP.REN.P.St.P.10/80-81 on 17.5.1997. Now this renewal is revoked by the order as per Annexure-B dated 9-1-1998.2. According to Mr. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, once there is a renewal, suomotu the same cannot be revoked. To support his contention, he relied on the decision reported in the case of D.P. SHARMA v. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ILR 1987(4) KAR 3255 page No. 3269 wherein it is stated as follows:-'The decision, so far the authority making it is concerned, become irrevocable, except where power of review is expressly conferred.' Heard Mr. Kotian, learned AGA. Mr. Kris...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Subba Jetty Vs. T.R. Narasimha Jetty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3161
M.B. Vishwanat, J.1. Heard both Counsel. The appellant is the first defendant. Respondents-2 to 4 are defendants-2 to 4. Respondent-1 is the plaintiff:2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S, No. 98/1989 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties (three items), viz.,3. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted the plaintiff 1/2 share in the suit properties.4. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted the plaintiff half share in the suit properties.5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.4.90 passed by the Learned Munsiff, the first defendant filed appeal in R.A.No. 34/1990 before the Civil Judge, Holenarasipura.6. The learned first appellate judge by his judgment dated 16.3.1992 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of first instance.7. The first defendant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C.8. First plaintiff T.R. Narasimhajetty and first defendant T.R. Subbajetty are brothers. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and Another Vs. B.A. Hasanabha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant210; ILR1998KAR1631; 1998(3)KarLJ324
1. Karnataka Ordinance No. 3 of 1997 by which Section 11 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 stood amended (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 15380 and 15982 of 1997. The ordinance was alleged to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that satisfaction as contemplated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India was not indicated while issuing ordinance. There did not exist any immediate necessity warranting issuance of ordinance particularly after the election process of the Market Committees was over and the results had been declared. The proposed amendment was alleged to be conferring powers upon the executive which would give scope to exploitation of farmers and agriculturists. The action of the State Government was alleged to be mala fide intending to take over the control of the constitution of the Committees. The impugned ordinanc...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ150
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25th of August, 1986, passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur, in L.A.C. No. 115 of 1981, the first respondent herein filed a writ petition in this Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, holding that as the provisions of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') had not been complied with the judgment and award impugned were liable to be quashed. The objection of the appellant regarding the non-maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy of appeal was rejected by the learned Single Judge. It was observed that alternative remedy provided under a statute was not an absolute bar for the High Court to entertain a petition and grant the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter was remitted to the Civil Judge with a direction to proceed with the Reference Application afresh after due notice to the writ petitioner.2. The facts of the case are that an extent ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Mahadevaiah and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ182
Acts/Rules/Orders:Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 22, 32, 226 and 227Cases Referred:Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 922, (1988) 2 SCC 271;State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1975, (1981) 3 SCC 610;Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360, (1980) 1 SCC 115;Raghubir Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149, (1986) 4 SCC 481;Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1996(2) Kar. L.J. 269JUDGEMENTR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 30354 of 1994 by which proceedings FIR bearing Crime No. RG 27 of 1987, dated 29-6-1987 pending in CC 23 of 1989 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Bangalore have been quashed. It is contended that the order impugned is against the settled position of law and has been passed in the absence of necessary parties. The facts of the...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Kumar and Others Vs. Karnataka theatres Limited, Mangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas443(Kar)
ORDER1. Since this batch of company petitions involve common questions of law, therefore these have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. These petitions have been filed under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') with a prayer to direct the respondent-company to rectify the register of members by entering their names as holders of equity shares to the extent they have purchased and applied for transfer. The Board of Directors have rejected the transfer applications filed by the petitioners on the ground that the transfer will not be in the interest of shareholders and the company. The necessary details of each of the petitioners, the shares sought to be transferred, its value and date of rejection has been produced in a tabular form, which is being reproduced hereunder:Sl. No.Sl. No. C.P. No.No. of sharesShare Cer. No.Date of Refusal1 23451. 26of 19881011224-1-1987 2752.27of 19881044724-1-1987 4723.28of 19881028424-1-1987 4884.29of...
Tag this Judgment!Warthyhully Estates Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR324(KAR); [1999]235ITR324(Karn)
Virendra Kumar Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is having a coffee estate and is an assessee under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.2. The dispute is with regard to the assessment year 1982-83, i.e., the previous year ending on March 31, 1982. In accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short), the return was due on May 31, 1982. There is a provision for seeking extension of time under Section 61 of the Act. The petitioner applied for extension in submitting the return on March 25, 1982, which was granted to him by the assessing authority vide endorsement dated June 5, 1982, till September 30, 1982. The petitioner was charged interest for the delayed submission of the return in accordance with the extension granted and instalments granted and paid in October, 1982, December 1982, and February 1983. In the meantime, the Act was amended by Act No. 14 of 1983 and the said amendment was made applicable to assessment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »