Karnataka Court June 2005 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.
State Bank of Mysore Vs. M.S. Srinivasan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR473]; ILR2005KAR2971; 2005(5)KarLJ88
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The management of State Bank of Mysore being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th April 2002 passed in W.P.No. 40754/01 has preferred this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant-Bank to reconsider the application filed by the respondent dated 15-2-2001 seeking his retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 27-1 -2001.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted in brief in the first instance and they are as follows:At the relevant point of time, the respondent was serving as an officer in the middle management Grade Scale III (MMGS-III) in the services of the appellant Bank. A charge-memo was issued on 22-9-2000 to the respondent alleging certain misconduct. The enquiry officer appointed by the management having held departmental enquiry, submitted his report on 27-3-2001 holding that the charge i...
Smt. Anusuya Alva Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Kar)37; [2005]278ITR206(KAR); [2005]278ITR206(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). This is a peculiar case where the petitioner-assesses is challenging the enforcement of demand made at Annex.-H dt. 5th Dec., 2002, wherein it is indicated that on verification of the records by the authorities under the Act, it was found that income-tax arrears was due from the petitioner for the period as indicated therein, and the petitioner-assesses was called upon to make payment of the amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which coercive recovery proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. The amounts mentioned in Annex.-H are as follows : Assessment year Amount (in Rupees) 1997-98 10,382 1998-99 61,111 1999-2000 2,01,176 2000-01 2,87,852 2001-02 1,09,6782. The assessee had responded to the notice, pointing out that the demands for the years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 were not correct or justified; that the said demand included even the amoun...
Srinivas Jagirdar Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authorit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ295
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Sri Srinivas Jagirdar is before me challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, vide No. Bangalore Development Authority/COMMR./DS:II/3601/2000-01, dated 11-7-2000 and order bearing No. Bangalore Development Authority/COMMR./DS:II/INDL.SITE/60/2000-01, dated nil (Composite Order) (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent-Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, in the case on hand.2. Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner was allotted an industrial site bearing No. 60, Industrial Suburb, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, measuring 132' x 330' by the then City Improvement Trust Board ('CITB' for short). The lease-cum-sale agreement dated 20-10-1975 was registered in the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Petitioner was put in possession and possession certificate was , issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, CITB issued a licence dated 7-9-1976 for construction of industrial sheds. Licence was granted to th...
B. Narayana Reddy and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secy. and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4081; 2006(4)KarLJ407
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 7th September 2004 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting their claim with regard to allotment of land in plot Nos. 173 and 174 in EPIP area, II Phase, White field, Bangalore in lieu of 28 guntas of land acquired in Survey No. 38 of Sonnenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore, belonging to the first petitioner urging various facts and legal contentions have sought for quashing of the same and by way of an amended prayer, they have also sought for quashing of the order of allotment bearing No. IADB/15084/7522/2004-2005 dated 16.9.2004 vide Annexure-U and the possession certificate vide Annexure-V issued in favour of the 3rd respondent and the allotment letter bearing No. IADB/15032/8653/2004-2005 dated 8.10.2004 vide Annexure-W issued in favour of 3rd respondent and holding that the issue of allotment orders vide Annexure-U and W and Possession Certificate vide Annexure-V issued by the 2nd respon...
Kaju Devi and anr. Vs. H.S. Rudrappa Alias Rudy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4370; 2006(2)KarLJ551
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This Regular first appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2005 passed by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 6689/99, wherein it has directed the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within 60 days from the date of the judgment and further directed that there shall be an enquiry for mesne profit as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure and they shall pay a sum of Rs. 38,500/- with interest at 12% per annum towards arrears of rent to the plaintiffs from the date of the suit till the realization of the same, they have sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree by allowing this appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to in this Judgment as assigned in the plaint presented before the Trial Court.3. The brief facts of the case are stated as hereunder for ...
Mahadevamma and anr. Vs. Mahadevamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant119; ILR2006KAR618
ORDER 27 RULE 7(2) WORD 'SHALL' USED-Whether mandatory or directory in nature-HELD-Depending upon the purposes and circumstances under which the word 'shall' is used and depending upon the consequences that would follow the word 'shall' could be used as 'may' and the word 'may' could be used as 'shall'. In this Court's view though Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order 27 provides that the Court shall extend the time for so long as it appears to it to be necessary the said provision has to be considered as directory and not mandatory and it should be understood as the said provision conferring discretion on the Court either to extend the time sought for by defendant, who is a public officer, or not to extend the time. The Court has to make up its mind as to whether the time should be granted or not depending upon the circumstances pleaded for extension of time and keeping in mind whether the extension of time sought for is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (C) CIVIL PROCE...
D. Umapathi Vs. Garison Engineers (i) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR292
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the rejection of the claimant's petition seeking compensation in respect of employment injuries sustained by virtue of an accident which occurred on 17.8.1997. The claim has been rejected by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore ('the Commissioner' for short) on the finding that there was an inspection by the Employees' State Insurance authorities ('ESI authorities' for short) as on 15.4.1998 and that the investigation period 17.5.1997 to 15.4.1998 according to the authorities disclosed that the establishment was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1923 ('the ESI Act' for short) and that the claimant's name was found at Serial No.9 of the list appended to the Inspector's observations which is exhibited as Ex. R2. It is pointed out by the claimant that this finding is incomplete, in that, Regulation 4 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 ('the Regulations' for short) which prov...
Sub-regional Office, Esi Corporation Vs. Sri Krishchand Shetty and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR604]; ILR2005KAR2798; 2005(5)KarLJ25
Manjula Chellur J.1. Heard2. The appellant launched prosecution against the respondents herein for the offence under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act punishable under Section 85(i)(b) of the Act. This is in respect of non-payment of contribution for the period between 1.10.2001 to 31.3.2002.3. The contributions payable by the accused-employer were not made in accordance with Section 39 and 40 of the Act read with regulations 29 and 31 of the ESI General Regulations 1950. According to the complainant, a mandatory notice was sent to the respondents accused demanding the said contributions, but there was no response from them. Hence, he filed a private complaint before the learned JMFC., Davangere. After taking cognizance, notice was issued to the respondents/accused.4. After appearance on 21.8.2004 the respondents filed a challan submitting that the entire dues towards the ESI contributions for the above said period was paid by them. There is nothing on record to show that such payment was a...
Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas31(Kar); 2005(103)ECC248; 2005(187)ELT12(Kar); ILR2005KAR3572; 2005(5)KarLJ286; [2005]63SCL67(Kar)
ORDERAnand Byrareddy J,1. These petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order as the issues that arise for consideration are common to all cases.2. The Petitioner in all the petitions is Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSIIDC'), it is a financial Corporation as defined under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The common Respondents represent the Government of India and the Department of customs.4. The other Respondents are entities whose units have been taken over by the Petitioner and certain third parties who intend to purchase assets brought to sale in terms of Section 29 of the Act, by the Petitioner.5. The facts in each petition are briefly stated here before considering the issues that arise;In Writ Petition No. 17111/2001, the facts are as follows;Respondent No. 3, a private limited company obtained financial assistance from the Pet...
Srinidhi Silks and Textiles Vs. the Regional Director, Employees' Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR925]; 2005(6)KarLJ25; (2006)ILLJ674Kant
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dated 11-2-2000 passed in ESI Application No. 1 of 1995 by the Judge, ESI Court, Bangalore dismissing the application filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of silk sarees and textiles. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the ESI Court dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 75 of the Act. It was the appellant's case that the appellant's unit M/s. Srinidhi Silks and Textiles, M/s. Srinidhi Fashions dealing in readymade clothes and M/s. Srinidhi Saree Sadan dealing in sarees, yet another partnership firm, are three independent units and do not have connection with each other, there is no transferability of employees from one establishment to another and that there is no unity of accounts, etc., and hence, it was not per...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »