Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
Ms. Basamma And Others Vs. the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Karnataka High C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2471; 2000(4)KarLJ348
ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reserve 15% and 3% of the Group-D appointments made during the period from 1-1-1992 to 31-7-1993 and to give appointments to the petitioners against these reserved posts and if adequate number of reserved posts are not available from the date on which the first candidate was appointed on or before 1-1-1992 to give appointment against the posts in general category and issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of the appointment order issued by the 2nd respondent on various dates mentioned in prayer column i(a).2. Petitioners submitted application for appointment as 'Peons' in the High Court of Karnataka on 9-7-1993, 21-8-1992, 5-3-1993, 24-2-1992 and 12-5-1993, but their applications were not considered for appointment by the 1st respondent even though they belong to Scheduled Castes and were fully qualified to be app...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ali Jangumiya Maniyar and Others Vs. Tanzeem Committee Mecca ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ81
ORDER1. In all these revision petitions, the petitioners-tenants have challenged the order dated 15-6-1999 in common order HRC Nos. 73 to 77 of 1994, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Belgaum. Though, these matters had been listed for admission, I thought it appropriate to dispose of all the revision petitions on hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties herein. Therefore, all these matters are admitted and taken up for final hearing this day.2. The petitioners herein are represented by the learned Counsel Sri S.W. Arbatti, whereas, the common respondent is represented by the learned Counsel Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, since the matters had been listed after notice to the respondent.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri S.W. Arbatti had taken me through the common order that came to be passed by the IV Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in HRC Nos. 131 to 133 and 135 to 137 of 1990. He further submitted that in passing the said order, the Munsiff...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand Prakashchand and Others Vs. C.M. Singaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3360; 2000(5)KarLJ233
ORDER1. This is a tenant's second revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and is directed against the order dated 24-11-1998 in Revision (Rent) No. 2 of 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chickmagalur, dismissing the said first revision petition and further confirming the order of eviction passed by the Principal Munsiff and JMFC, Chickmagalur as against him on 4-12-1995 in HRC No. 74 of 1990.2. The petitioners herein are represented by the Senior Counsel Sri M.H. Datar. The respondent-landlord is represented by Sri S.D.N. Prasad and Sri Yoganarasimha.3. Before proceeding further, I feel it appropriate to set out in brief the facts of the case. They are as hereunder:4. The petitioner 1 was the partnership firm and it was the tenant of the respondent-landlord. Petitioners 2 and 3 were the partners of the petitioner 1-Firm.5. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioner 1 henceforth is referred to as the 'tenant' and whereas the respondent is referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Gem Granites, Ilkal, Hungund Taluk, Bijapur District Vs. State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2821; 2000(5)KarLJ536
ORDER1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order.2. For disposal of these petitions, facts and grounds urged in W.P. Nos. 34072 to 34075 of 1993 are noticed. They are:Petitioner was granted quarry lease by the competent authority to excavate black and pink granites in the applied area under the provisions of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969. The Director of Mines and Geology had executed lease deeds in Nos. 2209, 2238, 2674 and 2679 in favour of petitioner-firm. Petitioner had paid royalty on the excavated materials on the basis of the demands made by the respondent-authorities from the time of grant of lease upto 1992, Petitioner in support of this assertion has produced the demand notices and reports of the Statutory Auditors. These documents would demonstrate that the demand for payment of royalty was made by the department on the basis that 3.5 tonnes of gran...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Parswanath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR224(KAR); [2001]247ITR224(Karn); [2001]117TAXMAN547(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Admitted. Heard finally by consent and disposed of by this order.2. In regard to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, certain investments made by major sons of assessee were included in the income of theassessee, as unexplained investments, under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). That was unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal.3. In regard to the assessment year 1987-88, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 69, towards purchase of a residential house, on the basis of valuation by the Valuation Officer.4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner sought reference of the following questions under section 256(1) before the Tribunal :For assessment year 1987-88 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding' that the investments of Rs. 1,54,778, made by the major sons of the assessee were th...
Tag this Judgment!Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta and Kannadigara Rakshana Vedike, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ378
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioners comprising of certain registered associations, former M.Ps., M.L.As., former Mayor and Deputy Mayor and an individual seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-D, dated 12-4-1999 in which it is stated that the Central Government has decided to shift the headquarters of South-Western Railway from Bangalore to Hubli. Petitioners have also sought to restrain respondents 1 to 4 from shifting the aforesaid headquarters from Bangalore to Hubli and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to examine the feasibility and take steps to create additional Zonal Headquarters of the railways at Hubli in the lines of additional Zonal Headquarters created at Bilaspur.2. In the writ petition the petitioners have elaborately stated the history of introduction of railways in India, the objectives to have a railway network throughout India, the railway lines laid in Karnataka, the importance of having Zonal Headquarters of Rail...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthegowda (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1604; 2000(6)KarLJ549
ORDER1. This group of writ petitions essentially concerns a dispute between two sets of persons and relates to S. No. 18 situated at Yerehally Village, Ramanagaram Taluk. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26909 and 13713 of 1995 claim to be the joint owners in respect of this land. It is their case that there have been rather long standing disputes between them and certain other persons who are basically the respondents, who according to the petitioners, have tried to virtually usurp the land in question. I do not propose to refer to the nature of the disputes, but suffice it to say that there have been several litigations between the parties and things have taken a rather serious turn because the petitioners contend that the respondents had originally put forward a claim to these lands and that the Tribunal by an order dated 29-12-1975, Annexure-B to the petition, had rejected their claim and that the order in question has become final. They allege that in the year 1991 the respondents, in...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Vs. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ621Kant
ORDER1. A neat and the only question of law required to be answered in this intra-Court appeal is as to whether the State Government can claim to be the 'appropriate Government' in respect of the 'cement industry' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter, the Act) entitling it to exercise powers under Section 10 of the said Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in the said industry.2. The Government of Karnataka in purported exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the Act had issued a notification dated August 29, 1986 (Annexure 'F') prohibiting employment of contract labour in respect of certain operations in establishments in the cement industry in the State of Karnataka. The said notification on being challenged by the respondent cement companies has been quashed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the State Government is not the 'Appropriate Government' within the meaning of Section 10(1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Awadhani Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR284]; ILR2001KAR653; 2001(1)KarLJ43; (2001)IILLJ1618Kant
ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The Supreme Court in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya v Sandoz (India) Limited and Others, at para 29 has held as follows:'Section 6 of that Act made the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act), Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applicable forthwith to the medical representatives. Sub-section (2) of the said section while making the provisions of the ID Act, as in force for the time being, applicable to the medical representatives stated as follows:'(2) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act and for the purposes of any proceeding under that Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a sales promotion employee shall be de...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer Jan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Bureau of Investigations, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR371; 2001(1)KarLJ533
1. The appellant who at the relevant time i.e., on 19-2-1992 was working as a First Division Clerk in the Office of the Registrar of Firms and Co-operative Societies, Bangalore District, is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification from the complainant-P.W. 3 of a sum of Rs. 300/- for showing favour in relation to the issuance of a registration certificate. The complainant approached the Lokayuktha Police who arranged for a trap and it is alleged that the complainant accompanied by P.W. 1 went to the office of the accused some time in the afternoon and that pursuantto the earlier demand, the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the money. The complainant is alleged to have handed it over to the accused who received it in his left-hand and thereafter put it into the drawer of his table. The complainant gave the pre-arranged signal whereupon the raiding party apprehended the accused. The three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each which had been treated with anthracene po...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »