Karnataka Court December 2000 Judgments
Tata Tea Limited, Bangalore Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR248]; 2001(3)KarLJ263
H.N. Narayan, J.1. The appellant filed an application before the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short), to declare that the applicant is not obliged to pay Employees' State Insurance contribution on the packing charges paid to Tea Trading Corporation of India and to restrain the respondent from recovering a sum of Rs. 17,6857- being its contribution.2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a company, engaged in blending and packing of tea having its factory at Bangalore. It employed 250 workmen at Bangalore and all of them are covered under the Act. The appellant has given the joh of packing of tea to an outside contractor. The Tea Trading Corporation of India which is a Government of India undertaking, unit at Coimbatore, was given contract for packing and despatch of tea. There is no supervision done by the appellant in regard to packing work done at Coimbatore. The appellant is ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Management of Indian T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1341; (2002)IVLLJ370Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are inter-connected, inasmuch as they are concerned with the Standing Orders of the institutions which are common in nature and therefore they are dealt with under a common judgment.2. W.P. 20302/1991 is filed by the workmen of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as HAL in brevity) praying to quash the order dated August 5, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/5/6/85/LS-1 passed by the second respondent appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India.3. W.P. 12533/1992 is by the workmen of Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as ITI in brevity), wherein the prayer is to quash the order dated August 6, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/4/861LS-1 passed by the very same second appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner.4. W.P. 12787/1992 is filed by the Management of HAL seeking to quash the order of the same Joint Chief Labour Commissioner dated August 5, 1991 in No....
Tag this Judgment!Ghatge Patil Transport Limited Vs. Karnataka State Consumers' Disputes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant147; ILR2001KAR1379; 2001(4)KarLJ112
1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the first respondent-the Karnataka State Consumers' Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'Redressal Commission') urging various legal contentions.2. Certain undisputed facts necessary for examining and considering the rival contentions of the parties are stated as hereunder.-The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act of 1986'), before the first respondent claiming reimbursement of Rs. 5,25,237.55 towards the value of the consignment together with another sum of Rs. 4 lakhs towards loss of interest and loss of reputation suffered by the company due to deficiency of service attributable to the petitioner and others who were made as respondents in the complaint. The first respondent-Redressal Commission following the procedure laid down under Section 19 read with the Karnataka Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 served notice upon the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Wine Products and Allied Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Indust ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1166Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. In both these writ petitions the award dated May 8, 1995 in Ref. No. 69/1984 passed by the respondent are questioned. One is by the Management (W.P.No. 7917/1996) wherein the award in so far as it relates to declaration of lockout to be unjustified and grant of wages for the said period i.e., from December 24, 1983 to February 8, 1984 is sought to be quashed and another (W.P. No. 25545/1996) is by the workmen to quash the finding in so far as it relates to strike on December 23, 1983 by all workers and remaining absent from February9, 1984 to April 16, 1984 by a section of workmen and workers are entitled to full wages for the period from February 9, 1984 to April 16, 1984.2. As common order is involved, the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by common order.3. The petitioner in W.P.No. 7917/1996 engaged in manufacture of Indian Made Liquor. There are about 158 workmen and the 2nd respondent union placed a charter of demands on November 22...
Tag this Judgment!Systems Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Systems Employees' Association
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ112Kant
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. Both the workmen and the management have preferred these two writ appeals against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in two writ petitions filed independently by them against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.D. No. 27/1990 (Annexure-A).FACTS2. In the year 1971, Systems Manufacturing Limited had established a factory in Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore, for manufacture of material handling equipment. For various reasons, reasonableness or legality whereof need not be gone into for the present, the workmen of the said factory went on strike from January 23, 1984. According to the Management the workmen also indulged in various acts of indiscipline during the strike like obstruction of entry into and exit out of the factory premises, prevention of despatches of factory goods, etc.3. According to the Management, all possible efforts were made to persuade the workmen to resume work but it was all in vain. Ultimately, the Management ...
Tag this Judgment!Khimijibhai Mills and anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR520; [2001]122STC32(Kar)
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. The division Bench, after noticing the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and the relevant case laws to which we would refer to a little later, has referred the following question for the opinion of a larger Bench :'Whether in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as amended with effect from April 1, 1992 provisions to exercise 'any power' would mean only calling for the record or passing of the order under Section 22-A also ?.'Facts ;2. S.T.As. Nos. 42--46 of 1996 have been filed under Section 24 of the Act against the order dated March 21, 1996, passed in ZAC. SMR. 64/B-28/1995-96 on the file of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Zone, Belgaum, nullifying the appeal order No. DC. AP. BG. KST. 496, 497, 498, 499 of 1989-90, 38, 39 and 40 of 1991-92 dated October 31, 1991 passed by the then Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (now JCCT) (Appeals), Belgaum...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan and ors. Vs. D. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC715; ILR2001KAR715
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The civil revision petitions are taken up with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd of December, 1999 passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Interlocutory Application Nos. III and IV in M.V.C. No. 128/1995, has preferred these revision petitions.3. The only son of Natarajan and Kanakarangitham died in a road accident. The said parents filed a claim petition against the respondents in M.V.C. No. 128/1995. Unfortunately, while the matter was pending before the Tribunal both the parents died. Consequently the petitioner Girija Gowri the only legal heir filed applications I.As. III and IV to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in bringing the legal representative of the deceased claim petitioners in Court. There was only a delay of one day. That was rejected, by an order dated 22.12.1999. The order reads as follows:None present. No application und...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sanjay and anr. Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC132; ILR2001KAR1510
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore has by an order dated 19th of October, 2000 declined to cut short the six months period prescribed by Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and take up the petition for divorce by mutual consent for immediate orders. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Court below to dispose of the matter expeditiously.2. The petitioners are husband and wife who got married to each other in May, 1994. Having lived together till June, 1997, they appear to have separated on account of what they call 'temperamental incompatibility'. Two years later, they filed a petition before the Family Court at Bangalore under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree for divorce by mutual consent. Sub-section (2) of Section 13(B) provides that a motion for any such decree cannot be made earlier than six months from the date of the presentation of the petition. Undette...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Visvesvaraiah Iron and Steel Ltd. and ors. Vs. T. R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR66]; ILR2001KAR1060; (2002)IVLLJ558Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. This Civil petition is filed seeking to review the order dated May 30, 1998 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6877/1999. The grounds for review inter alia arc that on the date of passing the impugned order the counsel did not receive the cause list and therefore he could not be present before the Court. It is also stated that even though objections statement to the writ petition was prepared, the same was not filed on account of this reason.2. Detailed statement of objections have been filed praying for dismissal of the Review Petition.A skeleton of facts are necessary to dispose of this review petition and they are:-Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner overruled the objection and granted compensation in a sum of Rs. 51,667.20. Being aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company has come in appeal.4. The short question involved in this appeal revolves round the fact whether the claimant could come within the definition of the term 'dependent' in order...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Canbank Financial Services Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Kar)532
Ashok Bhan, J.The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') in ITAs No. 795 & 760 Bang/1991, dated 17-3-1999. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. According to the revenue , following two substantial questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal.'1. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the difference between the deemed total income (as computed under section 115J of the Income Tax Act) and the total income as determined under the Act can be treated as unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward as per section 115J(2) of the Act when the company has declared a profit as per regular computation of income ?2. Whether, the difference between the deemed total income as computed under section 115J of the Act and the total income as determined under regular provision of the Act would defeat the very purpose and object of enacting Chapter XII-B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »