Karnataka Court August 2001 Judgments
Society of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Bangalore and anr. Vs. Bangalore Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant31; ILR2002KAR94; 2002(2)KarLJ192
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The substantial question of considerable importance that would arise for consideration in this petition is, as to what is a 'Charitable Hospital and Dispensary' for the purpose of Section 110(e) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the purpose of grant of exemption from payment of 'property tax'?2. Chapter X of the Act provides for imposition of various types of taxes/cases as enumerated therein. Section 110 of the Act provides for grant of general exemption from levy of property tax in respect of various categories of buildings and lands. Clause (e) of Section 110 of the Act provides for grant of exemption from property tax in respect of charitable hospitals and dispensaries. It is useful to extract the said provision which reads as hereunder:'(e) Charitable hospitals and dispensaries but not including residential quarters attached thereto'.3. The first petitioner, in this petition is a Society -...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit NaraIn Haksar and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC326; 2000LC19(Karnataka); ILR2002KAR2175; 2002(4)KarLJ107
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J.1. Alleging evasion of payment of duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) punishable under Sections 9(1) and 9-AA of the Act, respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore on 27-7-1995 against M/s. India Tobacco Company Limited (TTC' for short) as the first accused and Ashok Bhatia, Director of ITC as the second accused. On the same day, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 9(1) and 9-AA of the Act and directed issuing of summons to the said two accused. A case was registered at CC No. 1227 of 1995. 2. In the very case CC No. 1227 of 1995 on 31-10-1995, respondent-complainant filed before the said learned Magistrate, what he termed 'supplementary complaint' under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging commission of the very offences punishable un...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Lalita and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ228; AIR2001Kant485; ILR2001KAR4226; 2001(6)KarLJ441
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 43 of 1988 on the file of Civil Judge at Yadgir is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1992 awarding compensation of Rs. 6,69,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. 2. The facts of the case in brief leading up to this appeal are as follows. The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the Trial Court. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed O.S. No. 43 of 1988 on the file of the Civil Judge, Yadgir, under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act seeking compensation of Rs. 8,33,228.50 Ps. from the defendants. It is averred in the plaint that Narasappa, son of Bheemappa was working as Accounts Superintendent in the Office of the Executive Engineer, S.D.C. Distributary Division, No. 8, Krishnapur on a pay scale of Rs. 1600-40-1800-50-2300-1900-90-2990. In addition to basic pay he was getting Project allowance of Rs. 75/- and D.A. of Rs. 76/- and thus in 1987 he was getting salary of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Puttamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant169
ORDER1. Petitioners in all these cases are hawkers operating in the State of Karnataka. Petitioners in these petitions are seeking for a direction to increase the present commission from 0.30 ps. to Re. 1/- per litre in addition to allotment of 500 ration cards. They also seek for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order No. INR.DRA(S)148;2000-01 dt. 24-4-01 and consequent memorandum dt. 30-4-2001 on the following facts.2. Petitioners state that they are holding a retail license for distribution of kerosene in the rationing area of metropolitan city of Bangalore and they have been provided licenses under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order. 1986 and they are also allotted licenses for distribution under the public distribution system to ration card holders. The distribution of essential commodities are regulated in terms of public distribution system. The State Government has passed an order known as Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Hemavathi Laxmangowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ340
1. The appellant before us is an elected member of the Balappa Gram Panchayat in Sulia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District and, she was also elected as the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat. It is her case that a No-confidence Motion was submitted and the usual allegation has been made to the effect that this No-confidence Motion was vitiated by certain mala fide reasons which are common in politics. Pursuant to the submission of this No-confidence Motion, the Assistant Commissioner who is respondent 2 fixed a meeting on 26-5-2001 and the appellant originally filed Writ Petition No. 19717 of 2001 questioning the action but the writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second Writ Petition No. 24590 of 2001 which is the present writ petition wherein a two-fold contention has been raised, the first being that there is a violation of Sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadyaksha of G...
Tag this Judgment!B.D.K. Process Controls Private Limited, Hubli and Another Vs. Bharati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR416]; 2001(5)KarLJ621
ORDERThe Court1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, passed on the complaint filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent-Union filed an application under Section 33A of the Act, for a direction to the petitioners to give employment to the transferred employees on the ground that the transfer of the said employees is in contravention of Section 33 of the Act. 3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer to few facts relating to the dispute between the employer and the employees. The employees of the petitioner-management went on strike on 22-2-1999. Thereafter, the Union of India referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, on the following points.-'(a) Whether the management M/s. B.D.K. Process Controls Private Limited, Gokul Road, Hubli is justified in deputing Sri G.B. Deshkulkarni and 20 other workmen to t...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Oriental Transport Ltd. Vs. Saayi Govinda Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1646Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner challenged in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dated March 15, 2001 passed in I.D. No. 24/1999 as per Annexure-F where under the Tribunal has held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the respondent is not fair and proper solely on the ground that the management has not paid subsistence allowances for the period from January 7, 1999 to April 14, 1999.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:The respondent herein who was an employee of the petitioner was suspended in respect of certain charges for striking work and commission of act subversive to the discipline. He was served with charge sheet on November 30, 1998 accusing him of going on illegal strike without giving valid notice from November 23, 1998. As the respondent/workman was on strike, it was made clear in the said charge sheet/suspension order that he was placed under suspension and since he continues to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha and anr. Vs. T.H. Raibhagi Firm
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4301
G. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. Sri M. Marigowda, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent.2. Heard on merits.3. The petitioners are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 420 IPC at C.C. No. 132/92 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Ron. They are aggrieved with the impugned order, by which the process is directed against them.4. One T.H. Raibhagi, Managing Director of a partnership firm, filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Ron, under Section 200 Cr. P.C. alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC by the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report. On investigating into the same, the police have filed the charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, upon which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has issued summons by the impugned order.5. The very allegations of the complainant a...
Tag this Judgment!State by Kamakshipalya Police, Bangalore Vs. Maregowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4491; I(2002)DMC458; ILR2001KAR4657; 2001(6)KarLJ50
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State.2. The respondents-accused have been acquitted for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The State being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 199 of 1993 has preferred this appeal.3. Deceased-Shanthamma was given in marriage to the first accused. A. 2 is the father of A. 1 and A. 3 is the mother of A. 1.4. A. 1 married the deceased on 1-6-1986. The deceased committed suicide on 23-11-1992 by hanging herself.5. The prosecution case briefly according to P.W. 1-the father of the deceased is that the accused demanded before the marriage a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as dowry and gold ornaments. After negotiation P.W. 1 paid Rs. 25,000/- to the 2nd and 3rd accused and the marriage was performed.6. After the marriage the deceased used to complain that A. 2 and A. 3 were ...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Presiding ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR707]; 2001(6)KarLJ36
G.C. Bharuka, Actg. C.J.1. The appellant is a Co-operative Bank within the meaning of clause (b-1) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Co-operative Act'). The power of the appellant to create the strength of its establishment, eligibility for appointments, the procedure to be followed for the same and the conditions of service of its officials and employees are governed by Rules 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (in short, 'the Co-operative Rules'). It is not in serious dispute that the respondent-Smt. B. Shantha was given appointment by the appellant-Society on the post of Accounts Clerk in Violation of eligibility criteria pertaining to age limit and therefore as being required by the authorities under the Act, after giving due notice and sufficient time, her service came to be terminated by a memo dated 14-1-1988.2. The respondent questioned the validity of the above termination before the Labour Court by filing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »