Karnataka Court March 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Assistant Engineer (Cxl), Maintenance, Telephone Exchange, Belgaum ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR633]; ILR2000KAR3493; 2000(6)KarLJ14; (2001)ILLJ404Kant
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 16-4-1997 in W.P. No. 37388 of 1995 as modified by subsequent order dated 3-11-1998 in C.P. No. 989 of 1997, whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Hubli, directing reinstatement of the respondent but by restricting back wages only from the date of award i.e., 21-4-1995 till the date of reinstatement as against full back wages from the date of retrenchment but otherwise with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.2. The questions which have fallen for our consideration are of vital consequence being related to jurisdiction of the Labour Courts functioning in the State. First we may notice the bare minimum facts which are relevant for the above purpose. The respondent was employed as a casual worker on the muster roll of the telephone exchange at Belgaum from 10-9-1985. But keeping in view the subsequent policy decision taken by the Government of Ind...
The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bagalkot Vs. M.K. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR810]; ILR2000KAR4099; 2000(6)KarLJ538; (2001)ILLJ245Kant
Acts/Rules/Orders:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10(4-A), 25-B(2) and 25-F;Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948Cases Referred:Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, AIR 1981 SC 1253, 1981 Lab. IC 806 (SC);Workmen of America Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 458, 1986 Lab. IC 98(SC), 1985-II-LLJ-539 (SC);M/s. Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217;Ratan Chandra Sammanta v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2276;Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455, 2000(1) SLR 636;Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1351JUDGEMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Karnataka Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, against the order dated 28-1-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in W....
Vijaya Bank, M.G. Road, Bangalore and Another Vs. State by Labour Enfo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4773; 2001(1)KarLJ457
ORDER1. This petition is directed against taking cognizance of an offence under Section 10(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 in C.C. No. 115 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Hassan.2. The petitioners are respectively the General Manager and Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, Bangalore and the Hassan Branch at Hassan. The petitioners seek to contend that the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate in the circumstances is a mechanical act and does not conform to the spirit of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). The invalidity of the complaint for noncompliance with Section 204(2) of the Code is also sought to be pressed into service. It is also contended that the complainant has to show that he is competent to file the complaint under Section 9 of the Act. The infraction that is alleged in the complaint is no infraction at all inasmuch as there is no instance at all of any discrimination on the ground...
K.A. Grace and Another Vs. M.S. Lakshmipathi Naidu and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1670; 2000(5)KarLJ255
ORDER1. The petitioner who suffered a decree of eviction from the petition schedule premises in HRC No. 2800 of 1992 on the file of the XVI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, filed this petition questioning the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Court. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent appeared and contended that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent when he first filed the revision petition on 25-6-1999, which is a mandatory requirement of law. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of this objection, arguments were heard in regard to the maintainability of this petition.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed this petition on 25-6-1999. The office raised an objection that the petitioner had not produced any proof to show that he has paid the arrears of rent. Therefore, he has taken back the file and sent a sum of Rs. 2,400/- on 8-7-1999 which is...
G. Mujeer Ahmed and Another Vs. Mohammed Zafrulla
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant318; ILR2000KAR1534; 2000(5)KarLJ94
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the property mentioned in the petition. The respondent is the tenant in respect of one shop portion on a monthly rental of Rs. 350/-. The petitioner filed HRC Case No. 10225 of 1998 on the file of Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under Section 21(1)(a) of the K.R.C. Act against the respondent on 23-6-1998, The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner amongst other grounds that the petitioner is not the owner of the property. The matter stood posted for evidence. At that stage, the petitioner sought to mark HIBA declaration deed dated 27-7-1994. The respondent in the usual course raised an objection that the document is inadmissible on the ground that the same was not registered as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed IA II under Order 13, Rules 4 and 6 r...
D. Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC258(Kar)
ORDER1. The controversy in these appeals is regarding interpretation of entry 29 of the Fifth Schedule under which firewood or charcoal when sold for domestic use (except to hotels) have been exempted. The claim of the assessee was not accepted by the assessing authority. The appeal preferred before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), was allowed, where it was found that in later two years the assessing authority has himself given the exemption and a finding that firewood is sold to Central prison was given.2. According to the appellate authority unless the sale is made to the hotels, the tax could not be levied and since the sales were effected to Central prison, sales tax levied was set aside observing that the firewood and charcoal sold to domestic consumer or domestic use will not be liable to tax.3. The revising authority has taken altogether different view and observed that supplies are made to HAL and MPM Ltd. He was of the view that the supply to these public ...
United India Insurance Company, Bangalore Vs. N. Srinivasa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC548; 2001ACJ800; ILR2000KAR2829; 2000(5)KarLJ254
1. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the MACT, X Metropolitan Area, Bangalore in MVC No. 97 of 1992, dated 23-2-1994.2. Mr. A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence, the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. He also relied upon the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited v Shanthabai and Others. He further took up the contention that the Tribunal has not discussed regarding the liability of the Insurance Company in detail. In addition to this, it is also submitted that an independent enquiry has disclosed that the driver of the vehicle had no licence.3. It is pertinent to note that such contention is taken up by the appellant from the beginning.4. The learned Member of the Tribunal has relied upon the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited v A. Babu. It is pertinent to note that although the Insurance C...
Dr. Ramesh Singh Chouhan Thakur and Others Vs. State by N.T. Pet Polic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3140; 2000(5)KarLJ450
ORDER1. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner against the application filed by the complainant in the case for being impleaded as a respondent in the case. The impleading applicant who is the complainant in the case seeks that she may be added as a party-respondent along with the State to enable her to make her submissions in the case.2. The petitioner's contention is that under Section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code the State and its agencies such as a public prosecutor can alone prosecute the case before the Court and in accordance with Section 301, sub-section (2) all that a person like the complainant herein can do is to assist the public prosecutor and file written arguments in support of the case. The contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petition that is filed under Section 482 seeking quashing of the FIR filed in the case for offences of 465, 467, 478 of the Indian Penal Code and other related offences. Obviously Section 3...
Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR326]; ILR2000KAR3743; (2001)ILLJ980Kant
ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed by a Co-operative Bank assailing the order of the Labour Court, Bangalore dismissing the petition filed by it. Brief facts of the case are:2. The petitioner is a registered Bank under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act ('Act' for short). The respondents claim to be the employees of the Bank. Their services were terminated by order dated September 13, 1996. Aggrieved by that order, respondents filed a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Bangalore. The petitioner entered appearance and filed objections to dismiss the dispute on the ground that it is not maintainable as the petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The respondents are past employees and ought to have raised a dispute under Section 70(2)(d) of the Act. Section 70(2)(d) of the Act gives power to the Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to employee...
The Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ453; (2001)IILLJ1181Kant
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the K.S.R.T.C. (in short, the 'Corporation'} against the order dated 7-10-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 24048 of 1999.2. The learned Single Judge, while disagreeing with the view taken by the Labour Court under its award dated 6-5-1999 (Annex-D), has directed for reinstatement of the respondent-conductor but by denying back wages.3. It is not in dispute that some time in 1994, the respondent was engaged as a daily wage conductor pursuant to the provisions contained in Regulation 10(5) of the K.S.R.T.C. (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. During the tenure of his service as a daily wager, he was found to have misconducted himself 26 times in relation to issue of tickets and pilferage of the Corporation's revenue. Ultimately, again on 27-3-1997, when he was conducting the bus, he was found to have failed to issue tickets to a group of 10 passengers who were travelling from Nanjangud to Malahall...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »