Karnataka Court October 2000 Judgments
President, Cement Corporation of India Workers' Union Vs. Presiding Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR504]; ILR2000KAR4695; 2001(3)KarLJ413; (2000)IIILLJ287Kant
ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties,2. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Industrial Tribunal has power to add necessary and proper parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The answer is that it is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference. It is settled law that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power. However, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if while dealing with such incidental matters the Tribunal feels that some more persons who are not originally parties to the reference should be brought before it, the Tribunal may be able to make an order impleading such parties.4. The facts very briefly are the petitioner-workmen were engaged by the...
Tag this Judgment!inu Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT301(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The issues raised in these writ petitions lie in a very narrow compass.2. Petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, call in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders made by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore dated 9-12-1999.3. Petitioners aggrieved by the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore, have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore. Along with the appeals, petitioners have also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit.4. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise after hearing the Counsel for the petitioners, in his order dated 9-12-1999 observes that petitioners may have got a good case on merits that the same requires to be examined at a later stage. Therefore, the Commissioner was not prepared to grant an unconditional waiver of pre-deposit as sought for by the petitioners....
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Sharan Vs. Anurag Sharan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ72; I(2001)DMC767; ILR2000KAR4503; 2001(2)KarLJ267
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since both these petitions are directed against the order dated 6th of July, 2000 made in M.C. No. 318 of 1998, on the file of the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City, these petitions are heard together and though they are listed for preliminary hearing in 'B Group'. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 25193 of 2000 is the wife of the respondent in the said writ petition. In Writ Petition No. 25830 of 2000, the petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. A copy of the order made by the Family Court which is impugned is produced as Annexure-E to Writ Petition No. 25193 of 2000. The parties to these petitions will hereinafter be referred to as the wife and the husband.3. The few facts that may be relevant for disposal of these petitions, may be stated as hereunder:(a) The ...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Keshava Murthy Vs. A. Narayanaswamy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant77; ILR2001KAR2742; 2001(3)KarLJ266
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This application under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for short), read with Order 6, Rule 16; Order 7, Rule 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' in short) is filed for respondent 1 ('R-1' for short) praying that for the reasons sworn to in his accompanying affidavit, the pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 21 of the election petition be struck out as being 'unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and tending to prejudice and embarrass and consequently reject the petition as not disclosing the cause of action in the interest of justice and equity'. It may be mentioned here that 'paragraphs 6 to 21 of the election petition' stated in the application has to be, admittedly, read as paragraphs 6 to 11 of the election petition as there are only 11 paragraphs in the petition.3. As counter to this application, petitioner has filed his affidavit stating that the petition does disclose the cause of action, and...
Tag this Judgment!L. Shankaregouda Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ49
ORDER1. This petition is filed by an Assistant Executive Engineer working in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, challenging the order dated 1-7-1999 bearing Nos. A:AOG:AAO:A-5:2546 to 2551 at Annexure-E. He has sought another prayer by way of direction to the respondents not to hold any enquiry/criminal proceedings in respect of the very same issue.2. Petitioner in a detailed affidavit states that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for certain extraneous reasons as per Annexure-A. Karnataka Electricity Board (Vigilance) submitted a report complaining about an alleged misappropriation by the petitioner of the Board materials. A first information report was filed and marked as Annexure-C. Petitioner was also kept under suspension. Petitioner in the meanwhile submitted a detailed representation bringing it to the notice of the respondents regarding his innocence, but however, without taking into consideration his representation, an order dated 1-7-1999 was passed...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakka and Another Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant154; 2001(5)KarLJ406
ORDERThe Court1. In all these writ petitions, the facts and the grounds urged and the respondents are common. Therefore, this Court is passing this common order. 2. In all these petitions, petitioners are all the owners of their respective properties and have constructed both residential and non-residential buildings within the limits of Corporation of Bangalore City. It is alleged by the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore that the petitioners have violated the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the KMC Act'), building bye-laws particularly Clauses 5.1 and 6.1 in constructing their respective buildings in contravention of the sanctioned plan, deviated from the same and constructed the buildings beyond the limits of regularisation of the unauthorised portions of the buildings in law. Therefore, it is stated that proceedings were initiated against each one of the petitioners by the delegated authorities under Section 321(1) of t...
Tag this Judgment!First Flight Couriers Limited Vs. Karnataka Courier and Cargo General ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR277]; ILR2000KAR4751; 2001(3)KarLJ404; (2001)IIILLJ881Kant
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioner as the management appointed amongst others, the 2nd respondent on 12-9-1996 as and when he was also a member of the 1st respondent-Union. There was a strike and in that connection there was an agreement with the Union and consequently the Union called off the strike and the workers entered into a memorandum of understanding and agreed to restore normalcy and co-operation to the Management. Similarly, the Management also agreed to negotiate with the Union their charter of demands and both the parties strove hard to arrive at a mutual understanding, etc. Thereafter, the management transferred 22 employees to various places. The Government was pleased to refer the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal as per Annexure-A which reads:When this matter was pending adjudication before the Tribunal, the petitioner issued an order of transfer insofar as the 2nd respondent to Gulbarga on the ground that one Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Sowrabha V. Besur Vs. Karnataka Pre-university Board, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant235; ILR2001KAR392; 2001(4)KarLJ96
ORDER1. The question raised in the writ petition relates to the interpretation of Rule 17 of Regulation of Study and Scheme of Examination and Syllabus of the Bangalore University.2. The petitioner took the Second Year P.U.C. Examination in April 2000 with Register Number 101334 conducted by the Bangalore Univer-sity. The said examination consisted of two parts namely, Part I having two subjects and Part II having four optional subjects. In Part II her optional were History, Economics, Psychology and Sociology. Thus there were six subjects altogether. She alleges that she attended five subjects but could not attend one subject on account of her unfortunate illness. Results were announced in June 2000. She secured 367 marks out of 600 with respect to the five subjects attended which is 61%. Though she secured 61%, she was declared to have failed at the examination as she had not secured any marks in one subject which she did not attend. She challenges the action of the respondents in de...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited and Others Vs. M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR5000; 2001(1)KarLJ360
ORDER1. The respondent herein initiated criminal action for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners who are the Chairman and Managing Director and Directors by presenting a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. alleging that the petitioners purchased cotton from him and issued 10 cheques for different amounts drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, N. Paraipatti Post, Dindigul. On presentation, the cheques were returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds in the drawer's account'. The complainant thereafter got issued a legal notice to the accused persons calling upon them to pay the cheque amount which they failed within the time stipulated therein. He therefore filed this complaint in respect of 10 cheques. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed, took cognizance of the offence alleged and ordered issue of summons to the accused petitioners as in his opinion, there was sufficient material for proceeding a...
Tag this Judgment!National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1148; 2001(6)KarLJ17
1. National Council for Teacher Education, statutory body of the Government of India, is before us aggrieved by the declaration of Regulation 5(e) and (f) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission, Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institution and Permission to start New Courses of Training) Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulation') as ultra vires by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Sri Jachani Rashtreeya Seva Peetha, Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others, on the following factual matrix:2. The appellant, the National Council for Teacher Education (for short the 'Council') is a statutory body having taken its birth under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act of 1993 (for short the 'Act'). The said Council is established for teacher education with a view of achieving planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country. The statute casts...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »