Karnataka Court June 2004 Judgments
V. Mahadeva Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3852; 2004(4)KarLJ438
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner-Mahadeva is before me challenging Annexure-A, an order dated 30-1-2004 issued by the respondents.2. The petitioner was working as driver with the respondent. On 23-11-2003, he was operating the bus bearing Regn. No. KA 07 F 622 between Dharmavaram and Bangalore. When the bus came to Kaveri theatre near Bellary Road he noticed the red signal and stopped the bus. As soon as the green signal appeared the petitioner slowly moved the bus and a Maruthi van bearing Registration No. KA 04-4587 was on the left side of the bus and the driver of that vehicle was talking over his mobile phone. As soon as the green signal appeared, the Maruthi van driver also moved his vehicle and suddenly turned to the right and stopped. The petitioner applied break and due to this the Maruthi van was touched by the bus and some dents were caused to the van. A complaint was filed by the Maruthi van owner and article of charge was issued by the second respondent. Article of ch...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Bhandary Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC132; AIR2004Kant382; ILR2004KAR3102; 2004(5)KarLJ412
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order on the file of the first respondent dated 27th December 2002 in Proceedings No. RTO/U/KA-19-A-3333/Tax/02-03 and the confirmation order on the file of the second respondent in proceedings No. DTC/S/Appeal/ tax32/2002-03 dated 2nd September 2003 vide Annexures A and B respectively, has presented the instant Writ Petition.2. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner herein is the owner of bus bearing No. KA-19/3333. Since, the said vehicle was required for major repair, the petitioner filed an application for permission to surrender the documents while intimating the non-use of the vehicle for the purpose of tax exemption as per the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The surrender was accepted by the first respondent.3. When things stood thus, in the surrender application, the place of garage for the vehicle was mentioned as M/s. Aravind Motors, NH-17, Kundapur. Due to bona fide mista...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Sangam Solvent Textiles Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3246; [2004]137STC231(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The facts pleaded and the questions of law raised in these revision petitions are common. Therefore, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, we intend to place on record the submission made by Sri Anand, learned Govt. Advocate that he would be confining these Revision Petitions only in so far as the orders made by the Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 122/1998, 123/1998 and 1145/1998.3. The assessee aggrieved by the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwad Division, Hubli( First Appellate Authority) had filed the second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal Nos. 120/ 1998, 121/1998, 122/1998, 123/1998, 1145/1998 and 1146/1998.4. The primary question that was canvassed by the appellant before the Tribunal was, rice bran oil, solvent sun-flower oil and de-oiled rice bran are edible oils. Therefore, they are eligible for payment of tax under Central Sales Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and ors. Vs. Workmen Rep. by Secretary, M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ443; (2004)IIILLJ228Kant
S.R. Nayak, J.1. In these appeals certain questions of general importance such as whether on an award of Industrial Tribunal a settlement entered into between the management and workmen under Section 18(1)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, 'the Act' and accepted by vast majority of workmen can be set at naught by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that all workmen are not parties to the settlement; whether an Industrial Tribunal is obliged to apply norms applicable to industrial adjudication on a wage dispute while accepting the settlement and passing an award in terms thereof arise for consideration.2. The appellants are Beedi industries and they being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated February 1, 1999 in W.P.Nos.7588-7593 of 1998 have preferred these writ appeals. The first respondent in each of these appeals, namely, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Workers' and Allied Beedi Fa...
Tag this Judgment!Benny Paul and ors. Vs. the Manager (Personnel), Central, Bharat Elect ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ461
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases are seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioners in an Executive post known as Foreman E-II, from the date of petitioners' initial appointment and for payment of all consequential benefits including back wages. The petitioners seek for a direction for protection of the last drawn pay of the petitioners as a consequential order to the order of direction. 2. The facts are same/similar in all these cases. 3. The petitioners are the employees of M/s. Bharath Electronics Limited (for short, 'BEL'). They were appointed as Engineering Assistant-IX in terms of the appointment orders issued to each one of them. The petitioners state that the respondent issued a publication of an advertisement regarding the posts of Assistant Foremen (E-II) and Assistant Works Manager (E-III), in its organisation. This advertisement was sent to the Commodore Bureau of Sailors (CABS), Cheeta Camp, Mankhurd, Mumbai 400 088 t...
Tag this Judgment!B.H. Vasudeva Pai and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2818; [2006]146STC232(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In these Revision Petitions, we are concerned with the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95.3. The questions of law that would arise for consideration and decision of this Court are:'I. Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Authorities under the Act are justified in giving a finding that fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, weedicides, etc., do not fall under the category insecticides and pesticides by solely relying on the amendments made in Entry 117 of the Second Schedule to Karnataka Sales Tax Act?II. Whether the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified in holding gramaxone, vitto-plant, zimag, etc., do not fall under the category of insecticides and pesticides?III. Whether the Tribunal is justified in subjecting the second and subsequent sales of gramaxone, vitto-plan...
Tag this Judgment!Khandelwal Brothers Co. Ltd. Vs. G.S. Nisar Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2864; 2004(5)KarLJ120
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The legislative action is one of the techniques in the democratic polity to solve the social problems in a legal manner to avoid social frictions and to prevent unlawful methods to vindicate one's right. The Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 is one such legislation in the direction. The dispute resolution procedural law in civil jurisprudence broadly Category different jurisdictions like matrimonial, probate, insolvency, and Civil Court jurisdiction, etc. In the category of the Civil Court jurisdiction there is further classification of Civil Court and Small Cause Court, The wholesome object of creating Small Cause Court is to provide expeditious trial and disposal of certain type of cases in the shortest possible time. The instant case provides a queer situation of a provision in the Small Cause Courts Act working against and subverting the object of Small Cause jurisdiction.2. In this case the appellant is the tenant of a non-residential premises on the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Rahimunnisa Vs. Bangalore University, by Its Registrar and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3151
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The First respondent, Bangalore University by its notification dated 25.08.1997 published in the daily newspaper the Indian Express, Bangalore, invited applications for filling up of vacant posts of lectures in the Department of Zoology, Out of 7 posts notified, 3 were reserved for General Merit, while one each for SC, ST Category-I and one SC backlog. Human cytogenesis was shown to be the specialisation reserved for backlog SC. The specialisation as provided for in the notification for the other six posts were Biological Chemistry/Animal Biology, Fishery Biology/General Physiology of Reproduction.2. The petitioner, claiming to be a lady candidate belonging to Muslim community-Daravesu, possessing the required qualification, applied for the post of lecturer in the Department of Zoology reserved for category-I, by her application dated 14.10.1997.3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when she appeared for the interview on 18.09.1998 before the Board o...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and ors. Vs. the Lao and Asst. Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2784; 2004(5)KarLJ239
ORDER 47 RULE 1 - DOCTRINE OF MERGER - REVIEW PETITION FILED - MAINTAINABILITY - Civil Court after fixing the market value did not award interest on solatium and additional market value - Batch of MFA's filed seeking interest on solatium and additional market value - Batch of MFA's dismissed on the ground that explanation offered for delay was not satisfactory - The land owners thereafter field petitions under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPCs under Section 151 CPC in the Civil Court seeking to review its judgment and order dated 30.11.98 - Said Review petitions dismissed by Civil Courts - CRP's preferred to High Court - Learned Single Judge referring the same to Division Bench -Whether review petitions filed by the petitioners before the Civil Court under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and 151 CPC are maintainable - Whether the award passed by Civil Court on 30.11.98 merges with the order of learned Single Judge in the batch of MFA's - HELD - This Court revises or m...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka, by Its Commissioner for Commercial Taxes and anr. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3036; [2005]139STC28(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. State of Karnataka, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellant Tribunal, Bangalore in S.T.A Nos. 860-867/1998 dated 10.12.1999, is before this Court in these revision petitions by the said order, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Gulbarga, in the present case Revisional Authority for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94.2. Facts for the purpose of disposal of these revision petitions are as under; Respondent herein is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also a registered dealer both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, herein after referred to as KST Act and CST Act respectively. The trade in which it is engaged is primarily to manufacture and sell cement packed in gunny bags/plastic bags. The assessing Authority while framing the original Order for the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »