Karnataka Court October 2001 Judgments
M.C. Ingalagavi and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ352
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioners in all these petitions are retired teachers of the University, private aided colleges governed by UGC and technical colleges governed by the AICTE. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the Government Orders dated 8-8-2000 and 29-7-2000 issued by the State Government introducing Clauses 31-A and 27-A to the Government Order dated 15-11-1999.2. The Government in its order bearing No. ED 188 DCE 99, dated 15-11-1999, revised the pay scale of all Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Instructors/Directors working in Universities, Government colleges and Government aided colleges on the basis of the pay scales suggested by the UGC and AICTE with effect from 1-1-1996 and accordingly, the petitioners had drawn their salaries as per the revised pay scale with effect from 1-1-1996. Thereafter, the Government under the impugned orders introduced Clauses 31-A and 27-A which read as follows.-'(1) UGC scales as revised from 1-1-1996 have been li...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudharshan Silks and Sarees
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Kar)256; ILR2002KAR82; [2002]253ITR145(KAR); [2002]253ITR145(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN152(Kar)
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has referred to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following common question of law that arises for consideration in all these references :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) ?'2. The references relate to different assessment years of the two assessees carrying on business in the name and style of Sudarshan Silk and Sarees and Sudarshan Silks. Assessments for Sudarshan Silk and Sarees were completed for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 on different dates, on the basis of the returns filed by the said assessee. The assessment of Sudarshan Silks was similarly completed for the assessment year 1986-87. Some time thereafter search and seizure proceedings in terms of Section 132 of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ243
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. is before this Court challenging the award dated 18-8-2000 passed in I.D.R. No. 5 of 2000. 2. The State Government has referred the following issues in its order dated 22-3-2000. 3. Objection statements were filed by the parties. 4. The Labour Court has framed 5 issues and has answered the same in para 6 of the award. Evidence was also recorded before the Labour Court. The workman examined himself in addition to producing thedocuments. The management did not examine any witnesses. It produced 9 documents. The Labour Court in the light of the material placed on record, has passed the following order: '1. Reference is accepted. 2. The order of termination of the I party on 23-11-1996 and order in Ex. M. 8 is set aside and quashed. 3. The I party shall be reinstated to the same post with continuity of service. 4. I party is entitled to back wages to the extent of 50% from 23-11-1996 until he is reinstated. 5. 2 months' tim...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank, Bangalore Vs. Chamundi Industries and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant56; [2002]112CompCas394a(Kar); ILR2002KAR695
ORDERThe Court 1. This writ petition is by the Bank challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the application for recovery of money from defendants 1 to 3 filed by the Bank holding that it is not maintainable on the ground that the application is hit by Rule 10 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. The petitioner-Bank filed an application under Section 17 of the Recoveries of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,90,934/- with cost, current and future interest. The respondents who are defendants before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') have not disputed or denied the transaction entered into between the Bank and respondents 1 to 3. Respondent 3 in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal has stated that the Bank has unjustly combined the two dist...
Tag this Judgment!indushekar B.S. and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2978
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The Appellants in MFAs 2358/2001 and 2360/2001 were respectively the claimants in LAC Nos. 137 and 138/1999 on the file of the II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. LAC NO. 137/1999 relates to acquisition of Sy.No. 21 (20 Guntas) and Sy.No. 22 (31 Guntas) in all 1 acre 11 Guntas and LAC No. 138/1999 relates to acquisition of Land bearing Sy.No. 12 (26 Guntas), all situated at Gubbala Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.2. The said lands were acquired for laying the pipe line for Cauvery Drinking Water Supply Scheme, Bangalore (IV Stage) by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board under Preliminary Notification dated 28.2.1995 (gazetted on 9.3.1995) and Final Notification dated 24.7.1996 (gazetted on 15.8.1996). The possession of the lands was taken on 25.2.1999, after passing the award on 9.9.1998. As per the Award, the LAO determined the market value of the land as Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Separate compensation was awarded for the structur...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga District and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1082; 2002(1)KarLJ12
1. The common point of law that is involved in this group of writ petitions centers around the question that has really been set at rest by the Apex Court in the decision in State of Karnataka and Ors. V. B.V. Thimmappa and Ors. As far as the present group of petitions are concerned, we are simplifying the issue to the extent of pointing out that the question arose as to whether police constables who have been accorded concession of promotions on their having passed the qualifying examination in relation to their proficiency in Kannada language who do not pass the requisite examination within the prescribed period of time are liable to be reverted. The State Government had proceeded on the assumption that since the Government had made a concession and allowed certain categories of employees to avail of their promotions provided they pass the qualifying examination within the prescribed period of time, and who defaulted were liable to be penalized or in other words, that they were liabl...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Murugendrappa Vs. Karnataka State Agro Industries Corporation Lim ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1471; 2002(1)KarLJ21
The Court 1. This appeal is by the defendant. Respondent-Karnataka State Agro Industries Limited filed a suit against the appellant herein for recovery of Rs. 71,355.95 together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of recovery and for other reliefs. The said suit was hotly contested by the appellant. Trial Court decreed the suit against the appellant for Rs. 71,355.95 with Court costs and current interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The said judgment and decree is now under challenge.2. After hearing the matter some time, it is noticed by this Court that certain documents filed by the respondent before the Trial Court were taken back by the respondent and the said documents were not available in the records sent by the Trial Court. Thereafter, Trial Court was directed to send back the entire documents. Trial Court records were secured viz., Exs. P-6 and 7. Exs. P-6 and 7 are the books of account. After hearing the learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!V.B. Dhanaraju Vs. Cauvery GramIn Bank, Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ250
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner, an employee of the first respondent-Cauvery Grameena Bank ('Bank' for short), a body constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, is before this Court, inter alia questioning the legality or otherwise of the orders dated 30-7-1993 passed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in confirming the orders dated 26-3-1993 made by the disciplinary authority of the Bank, in imposing a penalty of dismissal from the services of the Bank.2. The facts in extenso requires to be noticed. They are as follows:The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as a Probationary Officer on .11-7-1977 and his services were confirmed in that post with effect from 11-1-1979.3. At this stage, I should refer to the service profile of one Sri K. Vijayappa, who was appointed as an enquiry officer by the disciplinary authority to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. Petitioner and Sri K. Vijayappa, joined the services of the Bank on the same da...
Tag this Judgment!Ningappa Basappa Harijan and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ302
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioners claim that they are landless agriculturists belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribes. They were granted different extent of lands in Sy. Nos. 2 and 7 of Naganoor Village. They claim that lands were Government lands. They are aggrieved by the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 5th respondent.2. The 5th respondent filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in the aforementioned lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Rules framed thereunder. The Land Tribunal has rejected her application by its order at Annexure-E, dated 20-1-1977. The appeal filed by the 5th respondent against the order of the Land Tribunal was allowed by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority by its order at Annexure-F, dated 23-12-1988, the order of Land Tribunal was set aside and 5th respondent was granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. Pursuant to the same, Certificate in Form 10 under Karnataka Land Reforms Rules as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Shankar Bhat Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2056; 2002(1)KarLJ190
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner professing himself to be a social worker, environmentalist and a permanent resident of Kukkata Village in Belthangady Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District, interested in preservation, protection and conservation of environment, has filed the present petition, purportedly in public interest, praying for quashing of the circular bearing No. Gra Pa 349 Ji Pa Sa 98, dated 23-1-1999, produced as Annexure-B.2. We have heard the learned Counsels for both sides.3. The prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows:(A) call for the records pertaining to the orders/circular bearing No. Gra Pa 349 Ji Pa Sa 98, dated 23-1-1999 (Annexure-B);(B) issue a writ or direction, more in the nature of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order/circular bearing No. Gra Pa 349 Ji Pa Sa 98, dated 23-1-1999 (Annexure-B) by holding that the same wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void ab initio, contrary to the provisions of the Act and violative of Article 14 of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »