Karnataka Court November 2000 Judgments
Dr. S. D. Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR430; 2001(4)KarLJ268
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Seniority is an important condition of service and also an important right of an employee. On seniority, depends promotion, where promotion is made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, Though an employee may not have a right to promotion, he has a right to be considered for promotion and such right has an intimate connection with his right of seniority.2. Seniority is closely connected with the question of promotion. The important question is, therefore, how seniority should be counted. Is it from the date of joining the grade in which seniority is to be determined or is it from the date of acquisition of qualification for the post, irrespective of the date when the incumbent happens to be appointed to the grade. This is the short question that arises for consideration and decision of this Court in these two petitions.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the sole issue in the writ petitions are, the petitioner-Dr. 3-D. Nagaraj in W.P. No. 32753 of 199...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingappa Vs. Management of Minerva Mills and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR382]; (2001)IILLJ451Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate at considerable length because the point agitated by him in this case essentially centres around the question as to whether an employee who desires to agitate the question relating to quantum of gratuity paid to him at the termination of his services is free to agitate the issue after an abnormally long period of time. The petitioner in this case claims to have joined the services of the erstwhile Minerva Mills on January 1, 1946. These Mills are supposed to have run into difficulties and were closed from April 4, 1966 to February 10, 1967 and then again from January 2, 1970 to October 18, 1971. The NTC thereafter took over this mill along with several other sick units from about the year 1972 and the petitioner claims to have been among those of the workers who were recalled when the unit was reopened and admittedly he retired from service on January 1, 1984. Along with his dues, the respondents paid him a sum of...
Tag this Judgment!D.V. Lakshmana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2689; 2001(4)KarLJ185
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the following lands situated in Udayagiri and Bhuvanahalli Villages, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.-Sy. No.Extent A.G.VillageSy. No. 19.33UdayagiriSy. No. 25.33UdayagiriSy. No. 34.39UdayagiriSy. No. 46-08UdayagiriSy. No. 57.03UdayagiriSy. No. 66.11UdayagiriSy. No. 765.12UdayagiriSy. No. 407.04Bhuvanahalli 52A.23G 2. According to petitioner, the said lands along with the surrounding land were declared as an industrial area under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short). Thereafter, the State Government issued a preliminary notification dated 7-7-1994 (gazetted on 7-7-1994) under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act giving notice of its intention to acquire such lands, as they were required for the purpose of an industrial establishment by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('Board' for short). In pursuance of it, a show-cause notice dated 6-1-1995 was i...
Tag this Judgment!N. Veerabhadrappa Vs. Smt. Shivamma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR679; 2001(4)KarLJ630
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC to review the order passed by this Court on 29-2-2000 in LRRP No. 5814 of 1988 dismissing the same by a detailed order.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that Sy. No. 28/1 was given to Veerabhadrappa, as a tenant and that fact was not noticed by this Court while disposing of the petition. He submitted that the review petition may be allowed and the order in question may be set aside.3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the review petition itself is not maintainable as there is no error much less the error apparent on the face of the record. Even if there is any ordinary error that cannot be gone into by this Court.4. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v Union of India and Others , wherein it is held:'Mistake apparent on face of reco...
Tag this Judgment!Geetabai and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant294
ORDERHarinath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri B, R. Prasarma, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Notice in this petition has been issued to all the respondents, 2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are servedand service on them has been held sufficient. The respondent No. 2 has not appeared. 3. An application under Order 21, Rule 72(3) had been filed by the revision petitioners for setting aside of the execution sale. The Court below rejected the application. The applicant who had moved the application for setting aside of the sale has come up before this Court and filed the Civil Revision. That in para 3 of his objections/application Under Order 21 Rule 72(3) CPC it has been alleged that Sy. No. 35 of Hankuni Village put for auction has been the ancestral property and it is asserted, the said property could not be put for auction. Their further plea is that if the sale is held, the minors will be put to harassment and their shares will be affected. The Execution Court rejected the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Bopalaswamy (Since Deceased) by Lrs and anr. Vs. Management of Usha Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR934]; (2001)IILLJ1060Kant
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. These two petitions involved a common point of law and have therefore been heard together and have been disposed of through a common order. The brief facts that have given rise to the dispute are that the two petitioners were office-bearers of the Usha Martin Industries union. The first petitioner has passed away since the filing of the petition but that does not make much difference because the issue centres around the question as to whether the respondent-company was justified in passing an order for the withholding of the payment of the gratuity payable to the two petitioners. I am confining this order strictly to the short question as to whether the withholding or non-payment of the gratuity was justified within the framework of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and it is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not have any bearing in other proceedings. The reason for this is because I find from the record that the company had passed an order ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakantha Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ538Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The short question that falls for determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the two periods as pointed out by his learned counsel. The record indicates that the petitioner was permitted to work from April 18, 1995 by the Divisional Manager, K.S.R.T.C. which he did until September 20, 1996 i.e. till the date of dismissal. The petitioner contends that since the issue relating to misconduct was under consideration that he was not paid his salary and allowances during this period. The contention raised is that even if for any reason the Labour Court did not award the back wages for the dismissal period i.e. the period during which that order was operational that the petitioner's salary and allowances could not have been withheld for the period mentioned by me above namely April 18, 1995 to September 20, 1996. Since the petitioner was not under suspension this argument will hold good and the corporation is directed to compu...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramaswamy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division, Myso ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR748
ORDER1. Writ Petition No. [35473] of 2000 is filed by the State seeking quashing of the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 438 of 1999 at Annexure-A.2. The other writ petitions are filed by the petitioners in respect of the same subject-matter which relates to a request for conversion of the lands bearing Sy. No. 291/1 measuring 24 guntas, Sy. No. 292 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas, Sy. No. 293/1 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas, Sy. No. 293/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in all 6 acres 1 guntas situate in Kodakola Village of Mysore Taluk. The petitioner made an application seeking conversion of the said lands for the non-agricultural purpose with a view to form housing layout. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the request for conversion on the ground that no proper road provisions are shown in the layout, layout plan submitted for seeking conversion. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the appeal came to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal in No. 438 of 1999.3...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Mandira D. Vakharia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Kar)224; [2001]250ITR432(KAR); [2001]250ITR432(Karn); [2001]117TAXMAN236(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 173/Bang. of 1993, dated September 23, 1999, relating to the assessment year 1992-93, the Revenue has come up in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). According to the Revenue, the following substantial questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal :'(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance made by the assessing authority in the assessee's case under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was not proper?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessing authority was required to rectify the mistake under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Admit.3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to answer the questions of law raised before us,4. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganeshwar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ718Kant
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. Both the writ petitions are connected in as much as both are against the common order dated February 21, 1994, and the letter dated April 25, 1996, bearing No. ALCD/PGA /CR-6/92-93 and the order, dated November 30, 1995, bearing No. FGA-G/Gratuity/ Appeal/CR- 4/94-95, Annexures C, E and D respectively.2. In Writ Petition No. 14248 of 1996 one Sri Ganeshwar Textile Mills Ltd., is the petitioner in the third respondent Siddeswara Textile Mills (Private) Ltd., is the petitioner in the other writ petition, i.e., WP.No. 14420 of 1996. The employee of the said companies one Y.M. Basavaraj is the 4th respondent in both the writ petitions and the first and second respondents are again common as appellate authority and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.3. The common facts that have led up to the above two writ petitions are that the petitioners are two textiles companies established under the Companies Act. It is claimed that they are separate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »