Karnataka Court March 2006 Judgments

Divgi Metal Wares Employees' Association Vs. Divgi Metal Wares Limited ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1047]; 2006(5)KarLJ489; (2006)IIILLJ894Kant

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner, which is an association of employees of the first respondent-Company, has sought to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).2. The facts are as follows.The first respondent-Company is engaged in the manufacturing of automobile gears and supplies the same to automobile manufacturers. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-Company was with regard to the transfer of 85 members of the respondent-factory to its factory situated at Pune. This according to the petitioner was in violation of the Standing Orders governing their employment. The petitioner has produced the Standing Orders of the respondent-Company at Annexure-A to the petition and would point out that from Clause 20 of the Standing Orders, only an intra establishment transfer is provided for and there cannot be an inter establishment transfer. The petitioner...

Bagalkot Cement Company Vs. the Management of Kanoria Industrial Limit ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR53]; 2006(4)KarLJ141; (2006)IIILLJ656Kant

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The petitioner has called in question the award dated 22.10.2001 in AID No. 1/1995 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore upholding the dismissal of two workmen.2. The respondent management is a company engaged in the manufacture of cement and its factory is situated at Bagalkot. In the year 1995, the respondent-Management had on its rolls about 450 workmen. The petitioner is the trade union representing the workmen in the respondent-company. In the month of March 1994, the petitioner - Union submitted charter of demands relating to the contract workers, their wages, service conditions etc. Since the respondent managment failed to consider the charter of demands, petitioner-Union started agitation on 04.09.1994 and 05.09.1994. The respondent-management reacted to this agitation by issuing charge-sheets to the office bearers of the petitioner-Union by name Sri. K. Sudhakar, Sri. M.R. Mallapur, Sri. H. Y. Roli and Sri. M.M. Quazi, alleging...

Manasa Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. by Its Secretary, Sri P.S. Su ...

Court: Karnataka

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal, questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 92/97 dated 22.12.01 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Dn) & Mysore.2. The suit is one for grant of decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale deed dated 18.9.93 and 18.10.93, by directing the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed conveying the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property.3. Plaintiff is a registered Housing Co-operative Society, engaged in the business of forming layout and distribution of sites to its members. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants-1 and 2 under an agreement dated 18.9.1993 for purchase of suit schedule property on consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/- and advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on the said date and further agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- within 30 days from the said date. The balan...

H.N. Srinivasa Vs. K.V. Ramegowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2339

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 47 of 1992 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srirangapatna. Respondent was the defendant in the suit. Plaintiff filed the suit to declare him as the owner of the suit property and to grant him permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or anybody claiming under him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and to grant a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the construction on an area demarcated as 'MNOP' in the suit sketch and to direct the defendant to deliver the same.2. Since a short question is involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to give the details of pleadings and issues and the evidence let in by the parties.3. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit property. The defendant is the neighbour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant has encroached the portion measuring 15' x 45' marked as 'MNOP' in the suit s...

Dhanvantari Botanicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)10VST33(Karn)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner being the 100% Export Oriented Unit, has sought for quashing the Notification dated 30.11.2001 bearing No.FD 161 CSL 2001 (II) vide Annexure-B' to the writ petition in so far as it relates to omission of the words 'excluding petroleum products like petrol, diesel, furnaceoil, naptha and LSHS used as consumables or captive power generation units'. He has also sought for quashing the endorsement dated 2.2.2005 issued by the 4th respondent-Commercial Tax Officer (Inteligence)-VHI, South Zone, Bangalore, vide Annexure-C2. It is submitted by Sri T. Suryanarayana, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Notification vide Annexure-B granting certain exemptions, incentives and concessions runs contrary to the New Industrial Policy 2001 of the State Government and consequently, that portion of the Notification by which the words 'excluding petroleum products like petrol, diesel, furnace oil, naptha and LSHS used as consumablesor ...

Veerabhadrayya R. Hiremath S/O Revanasiddayya Hiremath (Since Died by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1740

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The appellants are the LRs of one Vearabhadrayya R Hiremath who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 46/92 before the Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.), Kalghatagi. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant to declare the adoption of the defendant by one Basayya has null and void and does not bind the plaintiff.2. According to the plaint averments, the defendant is the son of one Shivappa Murolli of Astakatti village and is a Lingayat by caste. The plaintiff had a maternal uncle by name Basayya Channaveerayya Viraktmath, who died six years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiff and deceased Basayya are Jangams by caste. Except the plaintiff deceased Basayya had no other relatives. According to him, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the properties of Basayya since he is the only legal heir. According to him, Basayya was an illiterate old man and was incapable of understanding and managing his affairs. Therefore, he was ta...

Dr. Karthik Jayachandran Vs. the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sci ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1909; 2006(3)KarLJ663

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to revalue the answers and to award full marks and for a further direction to consider him for selection to M.C.H. Degree Course for the academic year 2005-2006 on the basis of marks obtained in the written test. A direction is sought for striking down Sub-clause (7) of Clause 4 of Ordinance governing conduct of Entrance Test for admission to Post-Graduate Super-Specialty Course 2002. He has further sought for a declaration that the selection and admission of respondent Nos. 3 t(sic) to M.C.H. course for the academic year 2005-2006 as illegal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Petitioner has passed the M.B.B.S. Degree Examination from Dr. M.GR. Medical University, Tamil Nadu. He has passed his M.S. in General Surgery from the same University in the year 2004. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (for short University'), by a notification dated 10....

State Through P.S.i. Vs. Moohammadsab Urf Baba S/O Hussainsab Diwankha ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3410; 2008(1)KarLJ351

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The accused is convicted for an offence punishable Under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial court imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence Under Section 279 IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for an offence Under Section 304-A IPC. The State is in appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.2. The evidence discloses that a lorry was hired for transportation of the sugarcane crop from the lands Kumbar Ganavi village. On that day there was heavy downpour, the road was a mid road. The lorry got struck up in the slush mid. With the help of the tractor, the said lorry was extricated and was parked by the side of the road. The accused had also brought his lorry for transportation of the sugarcane from some other land from the same village. While so proceeding with sugarcane load he hit against the stationery lorry which ran over one Rasoolsab who was trying to untie the rope connecting the tractor and the lorry.3. The facts and evidence discloses that the accused had not seen...

Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Project and anr. Vs. T. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ620

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the award in favour of the workman primarily on the ground that the Labour Court was in error in holding that the petitioner was an industry and therefore there was an industrial dispute for adjudication.2. The contention gives rise- to an important question, which has come in for consideration before the Supreme Court earlier. In the present case, the petitioners are the Deputy Conservator of Forests and the Range Forest Officer of Social Forestry Project, Zilla Panchayat, Chickmagalur. The respondent was said to have been engaged as a Forest Motivator. From the material on record, it is not disclosed as to the activity, the parties were engaged in, in contending that the petitioners were part of an industry. The aspect, whether the petitioners were a part of an industry, has been summarily addressed by the Labour Court at paragraph 6 of its award. There is no discussion in arriving at its finding that the petitioners' establishment...

R. Gopal S/O Revanna Vs. Karnataka Rajya Kaigarika Sahakara Bank Niyam ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. An employer and employee related controversy which is subject matter of a pending domestic enquiry is sought to be brought before this Court by filing a writ petition for which purpose it is pleaded that the respondent-cooperative bank is nevertheless state within the meaning of Article 12 as majority of shareholding is by the State.2. While it is no doubt true, that for certain limited purposes, an authority or an organisation clothed with the powers and functions of the State can nevertheless be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12 for the purpose of part-III of the Constitution of India, that does not mean that . every employer-employee relationship is required to be examined in writ jurisdiction by this Court, a jurisdiction that is discretionary and meant to correct the arbitrary, illegal and whimsical actions on the part of the State and its offices.3. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent-bank and appears, had functioned as a ma...