Karnataka Court January 2001 Judgments
The Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Jaihind Roadw ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR84]; ILR2001KAR2281; 2001(1)KarLJ508; (2001)ILLJ1187Kant
ORDER(I). M.F.A. No. 3081 of 1995 is allowed. The order of the ESI Court dated 9-2-1994 is modified insofar as the grant of interest on the contribution due from the defaulter applicant by directing the applicant to pay interest at 6% on the contribution due upto 20-10-1989 and thereafter at 12% till the date of payment.(II) M.F.A. No. 3041 of 1995 and M.F.A. No. 3042 of 1995 are dismissed.(III) No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Committee of Management, Sree Siddalingeswara Swamy Shr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3034; 2002(3)KarLJ262
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. Heard arguments of learned Counsels on both sides. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Temple Institution seeks issuance of writ of certiorari and quash the allotment letter dated 3-8-1998 at Annexure-K of respondent 1-Bangalore Development Authority('BDA' for short), by which the petitioner was informed that an alternative site measuring 467 Sq. Mtrs. for Community Hall, described therein, was allotted to it for Rs. 4,55,325/- instead of the original site measuring 1225 Sq. Mtrs. that was allotted to the petitioner for Rs. 3,67,500/- under its original allotment order dated 9-8-1994 vide Annexure-B for the said purpose. It is further prayed in the petition that respondents be directed to put the petitioner in actual possession of the said original site allotted to it under Annexure-B, order dated 9-8-1994, since all the required legal formalities in this regard have been complied with. 3. It is not in dispute that as required by the relevant rules of the...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation, Bangalore Vs. P.R. Packaging Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR936]; 2002(4)KarLJ99
Chindananda Ullal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation to challenge the order dated 2-4-1997 in ESI Application No. 13 of 1990 passed by the ESI Court, in passing whereof, the said Court while allowing the Application had set aside the order dated 27-3-1989 in No. KAR.INS.I.53-7907-91 passed by the appellant-ESI Corporation under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, henceforth in brief referred to as the 'Act'.2. The appellant-Corporation is represented by its Counsel, Smt. Geethadevi, whereas the contesting respondent I having been served with notice had remained absent before Court. The respondents 2 and 3 being the State Authorities also having been served with notice, had remained absent before Court. The learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Ashok Mensinkai, being present before Court had taken notice for the said respondents. Accordingly, he is permitted to file memo of appearance for the said respondents within a period of four weeks.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Chaparral Health Services Limited, Bangalore Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC33; 2001(130)ELT34(Kar); ILR2001KAR2703; 2001(6)KarLJ354
ORDERThe Court1. A show-cause notice does not by itself determine any right or obligation. It simply gives to the party receiving the same an opportunity to state its case and oppose the action proposed in the notice. The notices impugned in these petitions also do the same. They call upon the petitioners to explain why action in terms proposed in the notices be not initiated against them. The petitioners can in response urge all such grounds on facts and in law as may be open to them and argue that the proposed action is either impermissible in law or unwarranted on facts. There is in that view no justification for this Court to intervene at thisstage and short-circuit the process set in motion by the respondents in exercise of the statutory powers vested in them.2. Counsel for the petitioner all the same argued that the notices were without jurisdiction, inasmuch as Notification No. 64/88-Cus issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, by which hospital equipments, apparatus and appl...
Tag this Judgment!Loordswamy Vs. Presiding Officer, Employees' State Insurance Court and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC320; 2002ACJ320; [2003(96)FLR1154]; ILR2001KAR2276; 2002(6)KarLJ111; (2001)IILLJ827Kant
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This appeal is presented by the workman covered under the ESI Act to challenge the order dated 7-10-1997 in ESI Application No. 66 of 1995 passed by the ESI Court. In passing the said order, the ESI Court had rejected the application of the appellant herein on the ground that there was delay of a day in presenting the application.2. The appellant herein is represented by Smt. H. Mangalamba Rao, whereas the contesting respondent 2-ESI Corporation is represented by Sri V. Narasimha Holla.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant had taken me through the impugned order. According to her, the ESI Court had erred in law, inasmuch as it had held erroneously that the application in question was not presented within 3 months from the date of communication of the order, for according to her, admittedly, the communication by the Medical Board was on 19-9-1995 and as such, a period of 3 months came to an end on 19-12-1995. Therefore, she submitted that the application presen...
Tag this Judgment!Chartered Housing and Bhoruka Finance Corporation Vs. Appropriate Auth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Kar)248; [2001]250ITR1(KAR); [2001]250ITR1(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN331(Kar)
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri S. Parthasarathy, and Sri K. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions and Sri M. V. Seshachala, learnedstanding counsel for the Income-tax Department. It may be mentioned here that counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7753 of 1993 has also put in appearance as counsel for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 12389 of 1993. 2. These two petitions, namely. Writ Petition No. 7753 of 1993 filed by the intending purchaser (purchaser) and Writ Petition No. 12389 of 1993 filed by the alleged transferor or the transferor, arise from the same order and the order challenged in these two petitions is the same. These petitions raise a common question of law for decision of the writ petitions. As such, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order judgment. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that according to the petitioners' case, there had been ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thirakappa Ramappa Itagi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ753
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The respondent No. 2 has taken notice twice. Hence, service on him is held sufficient under Order 5, Rule 19 (a), Code of Civil Procedure.2. Though this MFA is posted for orders, it is taken up for disposal by consent.3. The insurance company is the appellant challenging the compensation awarded and the liability under the policy fixed on it by the Tribunal in respect of an accident that has taken place when the claimant on 1.8.1987 at about 3 p.m. was unloading the soil from the tractor of his owner. At that time, the trailer bearing No. MEZ 2781-82 suddenly started and due to the said act, the claimant fell down from the tractor-trailer and sustained grievous injuries.4. Claiming that the accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor a sum of Rs. 50,000 was claimed as compensation for the injury sustained by the injured on the date of accident.5. The Tribunal gave the finding fixing negligence on the part of the dr...
Tag this Judgment!Jerome Saldanha Vs. Smt. Kausalya Purushothama
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1684; 2001(4)KarLJ530
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the decree-holder who had obtained an order of eviction against the respondent in HRC No. 12 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff at Mangalore. An eviction was ordered to evict the respondent herein in the above House Rent Case proceedings by the Trial Court on 25-3-1989. Petitioner lodged an execution petition to take possession of the property in question in Exc. No. 695 of 1989. The Executing Court issued an order of delivery warrant directing the Court Bailiff to put the decree-holder in possession of the property in question by evicting the respondent-judgment debtor. At the request of the decree-holder the Court also ordered for the police help to execute the decree. Accordingly, the Court Bailiff put the decree-holder in possession of the property and the decree-holder also accepted delivery of possession and delivery receipt was also executed by the decree-holder on 6-3-1990. On the same day he has also executed an inventory for having tak...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Land Army Corporation and anr. Vs. Smt. Somavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC524
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. In filing the instant appeal, the Karnataka Land Army Corporation had challenged the order dated 2.5.1996 in Case No. KA. NA. PA/NR.55/91 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, North Canara District, Karwar. In passing the said' order, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, North Canara District, Karwar (henceforth in brief referred to as the WCC) had awarded a sum of Rs. 61,236/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. on that amount.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Prasad had taken me through the impugned order passed by the WCC. He had also taken me in brief the facts of the case. He had further taken me through the evidence of the respondent No. 1 on the one side and the appellant Corporation on the other.3. At the outset, Mr. Prasad had argued that the NMR what his party had produced before the WCC under a memo on 30.11.1995, copy found as at page No. 180 of the records, is not at all forthcoming in the records. He had also pointed out th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Siddaramaiah Vs. B. Nagaraju and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR752; 2002(2)KarLJ151
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is a person who had been granted a licence under Clause 3 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 ('the Control Order' for short), to run a fair price depot at Gayathri Beedi, Mandya Town. The petitioner is granted such a licence as per the order dated 25-1-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies, Mandya District, Mandya as per the order at Annexure-A.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that he has been running the fair price shop thereafter and he is now aggrieved in view of an order dated 23-2-1999 purporting to have been passed by the second respondent in Case No. MFCS:208:RP:98 granting an interim order of stay of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 25-1-1999, by exercising the powers under Clause 20 of the Control Order, in a revision petition which has been presented by the first respondent before the Government questioning the legal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »