Karnataka Court October 2003 Judgments
Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR374]; ILR2004KAR2067; (2004)IILLJ1142Kant
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of providing security services. It is claimed by the company that the registered office of the company is located at Delhi and it is carrying on its business activities throughout the country employing over 25,000 employees. The appellant is an establishment covered under The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The subject matter of dispute in this appeal relates to its Karnataka unit which is covered under code No. DL/12438.2. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 7th June 2000 made in Writ Petition No. 45890 of 1999.3. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The Field Officer attached to the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') during routine inspection of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanana T. Bhat Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR5144; 2004(1)KarLJ328
ORDERBhakthavatsala, J.1. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner who is 'A' Class member of Respondent No. 2/Society has questioned the legality of the order at Annexure-B dated 30.7.2003 on the file of Respondent No. 1. Further, the petitioner has sought for declaration that Annexure-C, notification published in the Newspaper Deccan Herald dated 31-8-2003 is illegal.2. The first respondent is represented by Sri, Keshava Reddy, the learned HCGP. The Respondent No. 2/Society is represented by Sri. M.K. Krishna Murthy.3. The learned Counsels appearing (or the parties submitted their arguments for final disposal.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under:The Petitioner is a B.A. Graduate with Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources Development and 'A' Class member of the 2nd Respondent/Society. It is pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition that since 17-9-2002 the post of Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer in the 2nd Responde...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. T.K. Hariharan Vs. Manjula Ramaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ409
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this revision petition the petitioner calls in question the concurrent findings recorded by the Court below in allowing the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the old Act' for short).2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition under Section 21(1)(p) of the old Act on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had come in possession of an apartment bearing No. D2, G. 15, Brindavan Apartments, K.R.S. Road, Mysore of which he is the owner. It is the further case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant is residing there. The learned Single Judge of the Rent Court allowed the petition and granted an order of eviction. The petitioner took the matter in revision before the Court below. The Court below having dismissed the revision upholding the finding of the Rent Court, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner.3. I have heard the petitioner-in-person and learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.H.E.P. Vs. Vithal Beerappa Nai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ162
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The State acquiring body has preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment and award dated 17-2-2001 passed in LAC No. 29 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar (for short, the 'Civil Court').2. By the impugned award of the Civil Court compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and Rs. 79,000/- for horticultural tree is awarded.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The State acting through the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the 'LAO') and in exercise of eminent domain power, acquired 4 acres 32 guntas of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 9/1 and 9/4 of Balamane Village of Karwar District, for a public purpose to wit, for construction of Kadra dam by issuing Section 4(1) notification dated 8-8-1995 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act'). The LAO, after conducting award enquiry passed an award on 20-5-1988 determining the market value at Rs. 8,500/- per ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mithy Granite (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR790; [2004]266ITR151(KAR); [2004]266ITR151(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty J. 1. Since in all these matters, a common question is urged, all these matters are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. I. T. A. No. 31 of 2001 is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the correctness of the order dated September 22, 2000, made in I. T. A. No. 1582/Bang of 1992 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The assessment year which is the subject matter of dispute in the said appeal relates to the year 1989-90. In I. T. R. C. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1997, the Tribunal pursuant to the order made by this court calling for reference referred the two questions to this court as arising out of an order dated December 1,1995, made in I. T. A. No. 958/Bang of 1989 for the assessment year 1984-85. They are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holdin...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. the Executive Engineer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1561
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. M.F.A. 6795/2001 and 6797/2001 are filed by the State. MFA 6562/01 and MFA Cr.Ob. 217/2002 in MFA 6797/2001 are filed by the claimants. The appeals and cross objections are directed against the common judgment and award dated 5.9.2001 in LAC 30/1991; 14/91, 30/91 respectively on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Raichur, (for short 'Civil Court'). By the impugned judgment and award, the Civil Court had determined the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 29,100/- per acre.2. Facts in brief are as follows:The land measuring 9 acres 34 guntas comprised in S.No. 259/E and 259/A of Pothgal village, Raichur district, being a portion of the entire extent of land measuring 73 acres 20 guntas, was acquired by the State for the purpose of building houses by Karnataka Housing Board, by issuing Section 4(1) notification dated 11.9.1996 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) in exercise of its 'eminent domain' power. The Land ...
Tag this Judgment!North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shivashankar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4666; 2004(1)KarLJ233; (2004)IILLJ132Kant
Raveendran, J.1. Respondent was working as conductor in KSRTC (predecessor of NEKRTC - appellant herein). When the respondent was conducting the bus on 28.6.1991, the Checking Squad checked the bus and found that respondent possessed excess cash of Rs. 338/-. A charge memo dated 15.7.1991 was issued to him in that behalf. Respondent admitted possession of excess cash of Rs. 338/-, but however sought to explain the same by stating that one Vittal Bhovi working as Assistant Artisan in the Bidar Depot had given him a sum of Rs. 350/- for purchasing rice at Jambagi at Andhra Pradesh border which he could not purchase on that day, and therefore he possessed the cash.2. In the ensuing enquiry, respondent gave evidence and also examined the said Vittal Bhovi who clearly stated that he had given Rs. 350/- to the respondent for purchase of rice on that day. The said Vittal Bhovi was not cross-examined. Ultimately, Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of the charge an...
Tag this Judgment!Dharwad Zilla Panchayat and ors. Vs. Fairokhan A.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ210; (2004)IILLJ466Kant
1. This intra-Court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 43368 of 1999 wherein the learned Single Judge has confirmed the award dated 17th May, 1999 made in Reference No. 37 of 1995 by the Labour Court, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F in this appeal. The Labour Court by its award at Annexure-F directed the respondent to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without back wages.2. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as hereunder:The respondent sought a reference under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The following points were referred for adjudication to the Labour Court: '1. Is the management committee justified in terminating the services of the applicant Sri Fairozkhan, Bellary from 8-7-1992?2. If so what is the compensation the employee is entitled to?' 3. The claim statement which was filed, stated that the respondent was working as a watchman sin...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Sales International Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Kar)417; [2004]265ITR498(KAR); [2004]265ITR498(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These two petitions involve interpretation of Section 206C(vi) of the Indian IT Act.2. Facts are as under:The petitioner Mysore Sales International Ltd., is a Karnataka Government undertaking and is engaged in manufacture of arrack. The petitioner is covered by the provisions of the IT Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner entered the arrack trade from 1st July, 1993, in terms of the excise laws. Prior to 1993, there were several private bottling units in the State of Karnataka and they were manufacturing and selling arrack. Auctions were conducted periodically for the purpose of conferring lease of right of retail vend of arrack. It was conducted with reference to designated areas. The successful bidders are entitled to procure arrack from the bottling units and then sell it in retail trade within their allotted area. The arrack trade is controlled by the State Government. The Karnataka Excise Act has framed several rules for appropriate enforcement of exci...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bank Muscat Saog
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas340(Kar); ILR2004KAR1656; [2004]51SCL191(Kar)
N. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the laws of Oman and having its designated office at Post Box No. 134, Postal Code 112, Ruwi, Sultanate of Oman. The petitioner-company set up a Branch Office at Bangalore vide licence No. (BG) No. 1797-98 elated March 16, 1998 issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 22(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to carry on banking business in India. They have no other branches or establishments in India except at Bangalore. The authorised share capital of the petitioner-company as on March, 2003, is 7,50,00,000 Rial Omani equivalent to 922 crores 50 lakhs of Indian Rupees. Issued, subscribed and paid up capital is 4 crores 9 lakhs 37,480 Rial Omani equivalent to 603 crores 16 lakhs 10,040 Indian Rupees. The object of the petitioner-company is to carry on commercial and investment banking business, including the financing of trade and projects, etc. as set out in the Memorandum of Association. The petitioner-company is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »