Karnataka Court August 2003 Judgments
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Karnataka Operations Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ760Kant
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Petitioner has its factory at plot No. 1, KIADB Industrial Area, Doddaballapur. Petitioner alleges that in the year 1997 it was employing 90 workmen in its Tractor Division and 71 employees in Engineering and Plastic Division. It is stated that even though it has no obligation in law to provide canteen facilities, it has still provided a canteen to supply food to its employees at highly subsidised rates purely as a welfare measure. Petitioner claims that having regard to its commitment to farm and agricultural sectors to supply its products at a reasonable and competitive price, it has arranged its operations in a cost effective manner. As a consequence, to make its operations viable, out of its sixteen areas of operation, it engaged contract labour in four areas which related to non production and welfare activities, that is operations which are neither directly nor indirectly connected with its production activities nor incidental to the work of its establ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Mehta, Managing Director, Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Lim ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4798; 2004(1)KarLJ599
ORDERRamanna, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the J.M.F.C. (II Court) Mangalore in C.C.No. 6849/2000, whereby the application filed by Senior Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected. So feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have come up with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 9.2.2000 an unfortunate accident occurred in the factory premises of M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Panambur, Mangalore, on account of the leaking of the Ammonia Gas, resulting in the death of 4 persons. On the basis of the information received, an enquiry was conducted by the complainant and issued show cause notice and after receipt of reply from the Senior Inspector of Factories, Mangalore, filed a complaint against the revision petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act and accordingly, case ca...
Tag this Judgment!The State Through Shorapur Police Station Vs. Manappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4663
Saldanha, J. 1. Though the incident alleged is one of some seriousness and we had issued notice to the accused after hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, we have no option except to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and we shall briefly record our reasons for this.2. First of all, out of the injured persons only three have been examined viz. P.WS.3, 4 & 5 out of whom one is hostile, one of them hardly speaks about any injuries and as far as the third one is concerned, his evidence is of absolutely no use to the prosecution. Strangely enough, the witnesses who ought to have been examined which includes the complainant has not been examined. What is totally unpardonable is the fact that the medical evidence is absolutely zero in so far as the doctor has not been examined, nor has the wound certificate been produced. Even if we were to accept the submissions canvassed by the learned Addl. S.P.P. that the minimal evidence on record should be relied on by the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K. Lakshmamma Vs. T.M. Rangappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR5072
Sabhahit, J.1. This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the order dated 31.07.2000 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Tumkur, in R.A. No. 12/1997.2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to rank of parties before the Trial Court are as follows:Sri Kare Rangappa filed suit, O.S. No. 70/1959 on 24.2.1959 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore, for partition and possession of his half share in the plaint Schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties after division by metes and bounds and directing the second defendant to render accounts from January 1957 and future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession and for cost. The said suit was decreed on 31.03.1964 by declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the schedule properties and be put in possession of the same after partition by metes and bounds and to get accounts regarding his share from the date of suit till the date of possession. That b...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D. Hemachandra Sagar and anr. Vs. D. Prithviraj and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant33
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This seemingly innocuous Civil Revision Petition which at first impression appears to be an exercise of 'much ado about nothing' with due apologies to Shakespeare, does in fact throw up issues of consequence in relation to the law relating suits by indigent persons. Prior to the amendment of the law, the expression used was suing in'forma properties' and at that time there were well defined limits which prescribed that only an absolute pauper whose total assets wearing apparel, pots and pans and earthly possessions aggregated in value less than Rs. 500/- was alone entitled to the extension of the benefit of being exempted from the payment of ad valorem Court fees. The result of prescribing such an arbitrary unrealistic limit was that the benefits of the provision were totally excluded from a large number of genuine litigants who were economically within the strata of a person who is incapable of paying the Court fee and consequently, they were disqualified at t...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Umamahesh and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ360
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. 2. Initially petitioners were appointed as Plantation Supervisors by the second respondent-Karnataka Pulpwood Limited, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/-. The appointment was purely temporary and for a period of six months only. Their appointment as Plantation Supervisors was continued by the second respondent authority by their order made on 27-11-1987 and that was again for a period of six months only. By a subsequent order dated 7-3-1988, petitioners were appointed by the second respondent company as Assistant Plantation Supervisors on a consolidated salary of Rs. 690/- per month. While working as Assistant Plantation Supervisors, it appears, some of the petitioners were also asked to discharge the duties of in charge Plantation Supervisors and Assistant Plantation Superintendents. 3. Petitioners assert that...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Umamahesh and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3672
ORDERDattu, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order.2. Initially petitioners were appointed as Plantation Supervisors by the second respondent - Karnataka Pulpwood Limited, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/-. The appointment was purely temporary and for a period of six months only. Their appointment as Plantation Supervisors was continued by the second respondent authority by their order made on 27.11.1987 and that was again for a period of six months only. By a subsequent order dated 7.3.1988, petitioners were appointed by the second respondent company as Asst. Plantation Supervisors on a consolidated salary of Rs. 690/- per month. While working as Asst. Plantation Supervisors, it appears, some of the petitioners were also asked to discharge the duties of Incharge Plantation Supervisors and Asst. Plantation Superintendents.3. Petitioners asserts that inspite of the f...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Limited, Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4003; 2004(1)KarLJ466
Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is a Banking Company governed by the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and registered under the Companies Act, 1913. The appellant assailed the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Writ Petition No. 5926 of 1997. The learned Single Judge by means of his order dated 18th June 1999 dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is presented.2. Challenging the constitutional validity of the Interest Act, Sri G. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri S. Parthasarathi urged four contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the impugned Act has to be struck down as being beyond legislative competence of the parliament. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that the legislative competence for theimpugned Act has to be necessarily referable to Article 366(29), Entry 82 of List-I of Schedule-VII of the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Kar)15
Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is a banking company governed by the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and registered under the Companies Act, 1913. The appellant assailed the constitutional validity, of the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in Writ Petn. No. 5926 of 1997. The learned Single Judge by means of his order dt. 18th June, 1999 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is presented.2. Challenging the constitutional validity of the Interest-tax Act, Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri S. Parthasarathi urged four contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the impugned Act has to be struck down as being beyond legislative competence of the Parliament. Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel pointed out that the legislative competence for the impugned Act has to be necessarily referable to Article 366(29), Entry 82 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Bank Vs. Smt. T.D. Jayamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ706Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The Vijaya Bank, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated March 3, 2000, in Writ Petition No. 1963 of 2000 has preferred this appeal.The facts, as set out by the bank in the grounds of appeal, read as follows:'Smt. Jayamma, respondent herein on the death of her husband who was working in the appellant-bank, applied to the bank seeking her appointment on compassionate grounds in the bank. Since disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the deceased employee of the bank, i.e., the husband of Smt. Jayamma, the bank referred the matter to the Government for approval of appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds as per the Scheme formulated by the bank for appointment of the dependants of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds.The Central Government did not approve the appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the bank, vide its letter dated March 25, 1998 (as per annexure K), comm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »