Karnataka Court October 2005 Judgments

G.V. Vishwanath Vs. Management of Himalaya Drug Company

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR987]; 2006(2)KarLJ47

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner Vishwanath is before me challenging the order and award of the Labour Court dated 19-6-2002, Annexure-P and 1-7-2004, Annexure- PI, in case No. ID 160 of 1997.2. Facts in brief are as under:The petitioner is a confirmed employee of respondent-management. One Miss. Jayanthi lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner misbehaved with her and she brought the same to the notice of one Mr. Mitra. The petitioner was suspended pending an enquiry. Thereafter, he was issued with a charge-sheet-cum-show-cause notice for having committed misconducts under Standing Order under Clause 21(6), 21(4), 21(17), 21(32), 21(54) and 21(55), The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the management in the matter. The petitioner participated in the proceedings. Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his findings to the management. The management ac...

M.S. Zahed (Major) and anr. Vs. Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2006)BC449

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Mr. Joshua H. Samuel of M/s Cariappa and Co., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M.V. Srinivasan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank and perused the material on record. As the common facts and questions of law are involved in all these matters, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order by consent of both the Advocates.2. Based on the eighty eight (88) complaints lodged by respondent herein viz., Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune ('Bank' for short), eighty-eight criminal cases arc registered against petitioners herein and others in the Court of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Banglore for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act' for short). The petitioners herein who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 4 in all the cases have sought for quashing the said proceedings pending in 88 criminal cases by filing petitions.3. The on...

Binani Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]145STC24(Kar)

H.L. Dattu, J. 1. The appellants in these appeals are dealers registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act, 1957'). Apart from other business activities, they are also in the business of leasing machinery, equipment and motor vehicles. In the writ petitions filed, they had called in question the legality or otherwise of Section 5-C of the Act and the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes No. 5 of 1996-1997 dated April 12, 1996 and the subsequent circular No. 31 of 1999-2000, dated October 23, 1999, clarifying the effect of Section 5-C of the Act and the consequential orders of assessments, proposition notices/show cause notices issued by the assessing authorities and the revisional authorities. Since common questions of law had been involved in all the writ petitions filed before the court, the learned single Judge had raised three primary issues for determination. They w...

United Breweries Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)9VST594(Karn)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar J.1. Writ petition by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act'), questioning the legality of the Government Notification bearing No. FD 23 CET 2001, dated March 31, 2001 See [2001] 122 STC (St.) 67. (copy at annexure B) and for quashing of the same and also for issue of consequential mandamus to the respondent-State and its officers not to take any action as against the petitioner under the impugned notification.2. The writ petition also prays for a declaration to the effect that entry 103 in the First Schedule to the Act is a provision which can be worked upon only by the State Legislature and not by the executive of the State Government in the exercise of its delegated powers under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. The petition prays for several other prayers and a residuary prayer.3. The additional prayer in terms of prayer (i) has also been sought for, for quashing the assessment orde...

Kanakanagouda and ors. Vs. Devaraddi and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)ACC615

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. M.F.A. No. 7501/2002 arises out of M.V.C. No. 237/1995. M.F.A. No. 7520/2002 arises out of M.V.C. No. 617/1995. The insurer has filed the appeals in M.F.A. Nos. 7768-70/2002 in respect of M.V.C. Nos. 237/1995, 238/1995 and 617/1995. The Tribunal has disposed of all the cases by a common judgment.2. M.V.C. No. 238/1995 pertains to the death of one Hanamappa. M.V.C. No. 237/195 pertains to the death of one Smt. Gitanjali. M.V.C. No. 617/1995 pertains to the personal injuries caused to the petitioner.3. The narration of material facts in the judgment discloses that deceased Hanamappa was travelling as a loader in the lorry. The deceased Geetanjali and petitioner in M.V.C. No. 617/1995 were passengers in the lorry.4. Owner of the lorry had filed objections contending that the deceased and injured were unauthorised passengers in the lorry. Thus, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that two of the deceased and injured in the lorry are passengers. In view of the ruling ...

M.S. Zahed, Chairman, Hmt Watches Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cosmos Co-operativ ...

Court: Karnataka

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri Joshua H. Samuel of M/s. Cariappa and Co., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri N.V. Srinivasan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank and perused the material on record. As the common facts and questions of law are involved in all these matters, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order by consent of both the advocates.2. Based on the eighty eight (88) complaints lodged by the respondent herein, viz., Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune ('bank' for short), eighty eight criminal cases are registered against the petitioners herein and others in the court of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N. I. Act' for short). The petitioners herein who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 4 in all the cases have sought for quashing the said proceedings pending in 88 criminal cases by filing these...

Madhavan S. Vs. Management of Sundaram Motors

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in 1972. He completed his probation. He was confirmed in service. He was elected as the Treasurer of the TVS Workers Union. During his tenure as an office bearer of the Union, the petitioner used to take up the cause of workmen before the management and pursue it seriously. This was not liked by the management. Management issued a charge sheet dated November 25, 1977 that on November 14, 1977 at about 12.45 p.m. petitioner addressed a small gathering of employees of claims section without obtaining prior permission of the management for holding the meeting and in that meeting he made a derogatory remarks and indecent words inciting the employees, thereby committed serious misconduct in terms of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. Petitioner submitted his reply and an enquiry was conducted. One Sri Arvamuthan, was the enquiry officer. Enquiry was not held in accordance with law. Opportunity was also not given to ...

M.N. Venkateshaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Commissioner ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5084; 2005(6)KarLJ452

S.R. Nayak, J.1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 27th September, 2001 passed in Writ petition No. 26831 of 2000, has preferred this writ appeal. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are as follows:The grandmother of appellant, one late Smt. Kalamma, was granted 11 acres 34 guntas of land in Sy. No. 50 of Mallepura village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District during 1940s. In the same survey number, 5 acres of land was also granted to the father of the appellant, Narayanappa by name. Thus, an extent of 16 acres 34 guntas of land, in total, in Sy. No. 50 of Mallepura village was granted in favour of the grandmother and father of the appellant. The said land is hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule land', for the sake of brevity. It is the case of the appellant that from the date of the grant, all through the s...

S.H. Mohan Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5517; 2005(6)KarLJ390

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. By a notification dated 12.08.2005 issued by the respondent-State, the petitioner herein is relieved of his duties as Government Pleader. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.2. Brief facts mat are relevant for the disposal of this case and as borne out from the pleadings can be set out as under. Petitioner, a practicing advocate at Holenarasipura, came to be appointed as a Government Pleader on 16.10.2003. The terms of appointment as are clear from Annexure-B, show that the appointment was for a period of three years of until further orders whichever is earlier. The appointment of the petitioner was governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules').3. Smt. Thayamma, mother of one Sri. Suresh submitted a representation on 18.07.2005 addressed to the Chief Minister complaining about the alleged harassment by the petitioner, in that he helped Smt. Manjula, the daughter ...

Mahathma Gandhi Vidya Peetha Trust and anr. Vs. All India Council for ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant17; ILR2005KAR6073; 2005(6)KarLJ346

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is the Trust and the 2nd petitioner is an Engineering college run by the 1st petitioner. In this case the petitioners have called in question the order passed by the All India Counsel for Technical Education (for short, 'AICTE'), the 1st respondent herein dated 4-8-2005 (Annexure-A) imposing penalty for the excess admission made by the college for the academic year 2003-2004 and for quashing of the communication dated 15-8-2005 (Annextire-Q), whereby the intake of the petitioner for the academic year 2005-2006 was reduced by 46 seats in the undergraduate level Degree Courses in Engineering.2. The annual intake of the 2nd petitioner college was fixed by the AICTE at 730 in the undergraduate level courses for the academic year 1979-80 and onwards in various disciplines. By a communication dated 30-4-2003, AICTE reduced the annual intake of the college for the academic year 2003-2004 to 600. The college has sent a letter dated 23-5-2003 to th...