Karnataka Court December 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Subba Naika Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant237
1. have heard the learned counsel representing the contesting parties as also the learned Govt. Advocate on merits.2. There is a special reason why we refrain from dealing with the submissions canvassed before us from recording our findings because firstly, in the appeal memo it has been indicated that the learned advocates were heard by the learned single Judge on 5-12-2000 but that no order was pronounced on that date because the orders were reserved. It is certainly open to the learned single Judge to have pronounced the orders at any subsequent point of time thereafter making allowance for a reasonable period of time, for the dictation and finalisation of the order but in that ease, for obvious reasons, it is a requirement, of law that the order must be pronounced in open Court in the presence of the learned advocates and secondly, for purposes of limitation and several other reasons, it is also a requirement of law that, the order will have to bear the date on which it is pronounc...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ10; (2003)IIILLJ356Kant
1. The controversy involved herein is as to whether the three establishments owned by the respondent-B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar could have been clubbed together for the purpose of coverage of these establishments under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, the 'Act')2. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (in short, the 'Commissioner'), has erred in clubbing all the three establishments by holding that 'the shops and the manufacturing units, therefore, are different and distinct, and there is no interconnection between the two'.3. This is the third round of litigation between the parties before this Court. The issue is being kept alive since 1975. The respondent had started business in hardware goods including weighing scales in 1959. The business was started simultaneously at Mangalore and Bangalore. The unit at Bangalore was treated as head office and that at Mangalore to be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›