Karnataka Court December 2001 Judgments
U.G. Upadhya, General Manager, Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Udupi V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Kar)412; ILR2002KAR284; [2002]255ITR502(KAR); [2002]255ITR502(Karn)
N.K. Jain, C.J. 1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single judge, passed in Writ Petition No. 36445 of 2000 and connected matters, dated January 4, 2001.2. In Writ Appeal No. 1133 of 2001, the respondents have issued a notice dated July 7, 2000, produced as annexure A calling upon the appellant to furnish the information regarding repayment of loans for the period from April 1, 1997, to March 31, 2000, of all the customers of the bank as mentionedin the said notice. In all other writ appeals, the respondents have issued notice to the appellant-bank to furnish information for the period from April 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999, in respect of the term depositors who have held cumulative balance of Rs. 50,000 and above during the said period in the pro forma mentioned in the said notice. It is stated in the said notice that such enquiry is necessary for widening the tax base and unearthing black money and initiating proceedings in such cases. The afores...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Achar Vs. G. Saraswathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC694; ILR2002KAR633; 2002(2)KarLJ27
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-husband is the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the order dated 6-1-1994 passed in M.C. No. 46 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge at Mysore, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short).2. The appellant being dissatisfied and undaunted by the findings of the Trial Court that the appellant was not able to prove either the ground of cruelty or the ground of desertion, has come up in appeal to this Court under Section 28 of the Act.3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under.--The appellant and respondent are husband and wife pursuant to a marriage solemnised on 22-5-1977 as per Hindu rites. The appellant and respondent were both working as lecturers at the time of marriage. The couple got a male child in the year 1982. In the interregnum, the appellant-husband who had been awarded a scho...
Tag this Judgment!Muniakkayyamma Vs. Hanumakka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3722; 2002(2)KarLJ64
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The petitioner herein is represented by Sri N. Raveendra Reddy, whereas the contesting respondent 1 is represented by Sri T.H. Chikkavenkategowda. The respondent 2-Land Tribunal and the respondent 3-State are represented by the learned Government Pleader, Sri Bychappa.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Reddy had taken me through the impugned order under challenge, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition. It was his submission that in filing the instant writ petition, his party had challenged the impugned order on the ground that his party had not been served with the notice earlier to passing of the impugned order. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal could sustain in law.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, Sri Chikkavenkategowda supported the impugned order. It was his argument that the Land Tribunal was forced to pass the impugned order for a good reason that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Aruna Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ509
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsels appearing for both the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed off by this order.2. The petitioner is assailing the order Chunavane : Sankeerna: 1-2000-01, dated 25-9-2000 passed by the 3rd respondent.3. Petitioner was duly elected as a member of the Turvihal Gram Panchayat on 29-2-2000 and thereafter continued as a member of the said Panchayat. The petitioner has stated that due to unavoidable reasons, she was absent for three ordinary meetings of the said Panchayat held on 9-5-2000, 3-7-2000 and 11-7-2000 and this fact was informed to the person serving the meeting notices that she was unable to attend the meeting of the said Panchayat. The petitioner also submits, 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 16-8-2000 calling upon her to show cause why she should not be removed as a member of the Gram Panchayat as she was absent for three consecutive meetings. She had given a reply stating that as there was...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Shankara S. Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant108; ILR2002KAR623; 2002(3)KarLJ557
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions claim that they have successfully completed the five years LL.B. course in the University Law College, Bangalore (for short ULC) The University Law College, Bangalore is run by the Bangalore University which is established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.2. The petitioners applied to the Karnataka State Bar Council for enrolment. The Enrolment Committee of the Karnataka State Bar Council has issued individual orders refusing to enroll the petitioners as Advocates, on the ground that the University Law College has not applied to the Bar Council of India ('BCI' for short) for approval/recognition of its five years course; that under Rule 17 of the Bar Council of India Rules, no college can impart instructions in a course of study in law for enrolment as an Advocate unless its affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of India; and that as there is no such approval by the BCI either in regard to the affi...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Gangamma and ors. Vs. K.S. Yakub and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC190; 2003ACJ1040; ILR2002KAR647; 2002(2)KarLJ39
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal tinder Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is directed against the judgment and award dated 12-12-1994 passed in M.V,C. No. 83 of 1993 by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Madikeri, Kodagu.2. The claimants in the M.V.C. case are the appellants herein and are aggrieved by the said judgment and award whereby their claim for compensation as dependents of one Anand N.N., who died in a motor accident, has been negatived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the claimants were not able to prove that the driver of the lorry bearing No. CNZ 5126 which was involved in the accident that took place on 2-1-1993 between the lorry and a motor cycle in which the deceased victim was a pillion rider and had suffered injuries at the time of the accident and died later, drove the lorry in question in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants, being aggrieved, are in ap...
Tag this Judgment!Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Limited Contract Employees' Union (Regd.), ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR214]; 2002(2)KarLJ442
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.2. These petitions are posted for orders on the memo filed by the petitioner-union seeking to dispose of the writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act condoning the delay in approaching him by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. : (2001)IILLJ1087SC .3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent opposed the prayer made in the memo placing reliance upon sub-para (5) of paragraph 125 of Steel Authority ,of India Limited's case referred to supra, wherein it is held that on issuance of the prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before i...
Tag this Judgment!Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals Limited, Gauribidanur Vs. the Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR171]; 2002(3)KarLJ273
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner is sugar manufacturing company. It has laid off its workmen from the closing of working hours on 13th April, 2001 as per the notice at Annexure-A. The 2nd respondent-Association of workers of petitioner-Company complained to the Labour Department that the management illegally declared lay-off without paying lay-off compensation and thereby violated Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Labour Department issued a notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-B, for which the management has replied as per Annexure-C. Since the reply of the management was not tenable, the Commissioner of Labour issued the impugned recovery certificate at Annexure-D for a total sum of Rs. 51,56,746.00. The petitioner is seeking to quash the same and to declare that petitioner-unit as a 'seasonal establishment'.2. Elaborate and detailed statement cf objections is filed on behalf of 2nd respondent along with several...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.J. Shetty and Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Kar)375; ILR2002KAR906; [2002]255ITR180(KAR); [2002]255ITR180(Karn); [2002]122TAXMAN389(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law said to be arising out of the order dated December 5, 1994, in I. T. A. No. 819 of 1999 for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 50 per cent, of the raid expenses and 75 per cent, of the amounts paid to informants are allowable under Section 37(1) ?'2. The statement of case furnished by the Tribunal indicates the following facts :The assessment year concerned is 1985-86 and the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of excise contract. In the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year in question, the assessee had claimed two items of expenditure, namely, (1) an expenditure in a sum of Rs. 1,53,863 incurred towards helping the excise authorities in conducting raids on illegal manufacturers of l...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Rao and ors. Vs. Arunkumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC108; 2003ACJ332; ILR2002KAR615; 2002(2)KarLJ176
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the owner, driver of the lorry and the insurance company who were respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal. Respondent herein is the petitioner-claimant who filed a claim petition on account of the injury sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 20-7-1992 at about 12.30 noon near the railway over-bridge on Jewargi Road, Gul-barga. Claimant was aged about 28 years and that he was a Sales Officer at Zandu Pharmaceuticals Limited and was looking after the areas covering Bidar, Bellary, Gulbarga and Raichur and was drawing the salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. In the said accident, the claimant sustained the following injuries:1. Lacerated injury over the left patellar region 1' x 1/2'; 2. Swelling of left knee and upper part of left leg; 3. Commuted fracture at provinal (sic) part of left tibia with displacement of fracture fragments seen; 4. Sublimation of left fibula seen; and 5. Soft tissue swelling seen around knee joint on left side, in addi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »