Karnataka Court October 2006 Judgments

Abdus Subhan Alias Subhansha and ors. Vs. Karnataka Board of Wakf and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ71; 2007(1)KCCR459; 2007(1)AIRKarR425; AIR2007NOC388

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in suit. O.S. No. 21 of 1995. It was their case that the suit schedule property was acquired by them from their ancestors and it was not the wakf property. The respondent 1-Wakf Board filed its written statement taking the stand that the subject-matter of the suit properties were wakf properties. After framing of issues, the evidence was also let in and at the stage of arguments, the application, LA. No. 11 was filed by the Wakf Board praying the Trial Court to decide on the question of jurisdiction and following the Wakf Act, 1995, coming into force, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. The said I.A. filed by the Wakf Board came to be allowed and the plaintiffs were directed to take back the plaint. It is this order of the Trial Court which is questioned by the plaintiffs in this appeal.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitt...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. the Management, the Canara W ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR527]; 2007(3)KarLJ214; (2007)IIILLJ1045Kant

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The order passed by the appellant-Corporation under Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act' for short) demanding damages to the tune of Rs. 27,124/- for the wage period from 27.1.1985 to 30.11.1986 prompted the respondent herein to move the E.S.I. Court for setting aside the said order mainly on the ground that the respondent, had deposited excess amount with the Corporation and, therefore, the Corporation could not have levied the damages as above. The E.S.I. Court accepted the said argument addressed on behalf of the respondent, and allowed the application filed by the respondent and it is the said order of the E.S.I. Court, that is questioned in this appeal by the Corporation.2. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parries.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the order of the E.S.I. Court, is erroneous inasmuch as the court below had failed to take note of the fact that the dama...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by Its Deputy Director Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal by the ESI Corporation under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act is directed against the order passed by the ESI Court, Bangalore, dated 24.4.2000 partly allowing the application filed by the respondent herein under Sections 75 and 76 of the ESI Act and absolving the respondent of his liability to pay the damages for the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the ESI Court, the Corporation is in appeal. The facts that is necessary for the purpose of this order are to the following effect.A notice under Section 45-G of the Act dated 31.8.1998 was issued by the appellant to the respondent-M/s. Swadeshi Silks claiming contribution for the period from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1982 and it is the case of the respondent that only when the Inspector visited the establishment for the first time on 6.6.1991, the first respondent came to know of its liability to pay the contribution from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 and the contribution for the said peri...

Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd. (a Wholly Owned Subsidiar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 10.07.2002 in application Nos. 1 to 6/2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the dismissal of respondents.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in printing of currency notes having its press at Mysore in the State of Karnataka and at Saboni in the State of West Bengal. The petitioners issued an advertisement on 19.02.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of personnel in various grades. In response to the advertisement issued by the petitioners, the respondents applied claiming reservation under OBC category. In the process of selection, the respondents were selected and appointed on 06.04.1996. Subsequently, the services of respondents c...

The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs. Ganesh Mahal, a Registered ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2001 passed in ESI Application No. 87/1994 by the Presiding Officer, Employees State Insurance Court-cum-Labour Court, Mangalore, (for short 'the ESI Court'), in allowing the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short the ESI Act), that the respondent does not come within the coverage of the ESI Act, this Appeal is preferred by the ESI Corporation.3. Sri. Narasimha Holla, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent himself through his Manager has submitted Form No. 01 which has been marked as Ex.R.3 in. the evidence before the ESI Court and the said document speaks for itself inasmuch as during the year 1986 there were 20 employees working in the establishment of the first respondent and in view of this admission toy the respondent himself, the ESI Court could not have disbelieved the document Ex.R.3 and the ...

G.M. Venkatappa S/O Munishamappa Vs. Anjanappa S/O Munivenkatappa and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ611

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6-8-2003 in Execution Petition No. 19/1995 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Chikkaballapur presented the instant revision petition.2. The petitioner herein had filed Ex.Pn. No. 19/1995 on the file Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Chikkaballapur with a prayer to arrest and detain the respondents in civil prison and also for a direction to the Police to enforce the decree for permanent injunction by executing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 67/1988.After receipt of summons from the Court below, the respondents have filed their objections to the main petition contending that the petition is not maintainable as the decree was passed placing the respondents exparte and the suit filed by the deceased father of the petitioner who is no more, is not maintainable.On the basis of the pleadings of the both the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petition...

K. Vasikerappa S/O K. Ramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Prin ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ303;

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th July, 2002, in proceedings No. FD 148 EDC 2002 on the file of the 1st respondent vide Annexure-C and to quash the consequential Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as it relates to the petitioner vide Notification bearing No. ECS:8: AUG:2002 dated 1-8-2002 vide Annexure-D.2. The grievance made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of right to vend arrack in polythene sachets for the Excise Year 2002-03 in respect of Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The bid of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- lakhs par month was accepted and he was allowed to vend arrack in polythene sachets for the period from 1-7-2002 to 30-6-2003. Accordingly, the petitioner's bid was provisionally accepted on 3-6-2002 and it was sent to the 2nd respondent for confirmat...

North-east Karnataka Road Transport Corporation by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR1216]; ILR2007KAR590; 2007(1)KLJ650; 2007(1)KCCR296; 2007(1)AIRKarR331

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli dated 25.9,2001 in I.D. No. 18/2001 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman into service with 30% back-wages from 22.9.1993 till the date of reinstatement.2. The respondent had been working as a Conductor with the petitioner/ Corporation. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him and it is alleged that when the bus was checked on 8.11.1983, the checking squad found an excess cash of Rs. 48/- with him. He denied the charge. A regular domestic enquiry was ordered in which the Enquiry Officer found that charge is proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the Corporation and the respondent was dismissed from service on 26.6.1985. The respondent raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer in the year 1987-88. The Conciliation Officer forwarded the factual report on 27.8.1988 to the government, which in turn referred the disp...

Modi Xerox Ltd. by Its Authorised Singatory Shri Krishan P.R. Vs. the ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR553]

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act. is directed against the order passed by the ESI Court on the application filed under Section 75 of the ESI Act by the appellant herein. The ESI Court refused to accept the prayer of the appellant that it is not liable to pay the contribution in respect of the employees whose wages exceeded coverable limit for the period from October 1993 to March 1997. The ESI Court refused to accept the said contention put forward and directed the appellant herein to pay contribution of Rs. 69,623/- with interest3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that certain allowance paid by it to its employees like the house rent allowance, education allowances, field allowance, conveyance allowance, uniform allowance, professional literature allowance, reimbursement allowance and medical reimbursement allowance which formed part of the terms of employment and as such, the appointment orders...

Mallanaika and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ715

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore dated 2-3-1994 confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, dated 27-7-2004 who has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 24 years in filing the appeal.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.3. The petitioners filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner being aggrieved by an entry made in ICR No. 1/80-81 since there was delay of 24 years, the Assistant Commissioner held that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. In revision, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. It is also made clear in the order of the Deput...