Karnataka Court May 2006 Judgments
Sri. M. Bhaktavatsala S/O G.J. Murugan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ640
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a person who had been elected as Vice President of Robertsonpet, KGF Municipal Council and who has been functioning as the President of this Municipal Council pursuant to a resolution dated 25.1.2006, copy at Annexure-D to the petition, passed by the members of this council purporting to be under Sections 42(6) and 42(7) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, (for short the 'Act') electing the petitioner to act as President for a period of five months therefrom in view of the incumbent President one Smt. Dilshad Begum having gone on leave for a period of six months.2. The grievance of the petitioner is in the context of issue of notice dated 26.4.2006, copy at Annexure-H to the petition, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, purporting to be in his capacity as the returning officer for conducting the election to elect a member of the Council as president in view of the vacancy in the post of president du...
Tag this Judgment!Rangappa S/O Yenkappa Major Workmen in the Co-op Spinning Mills Ltd., ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ538
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioners are workmen employed with the respondent. The respondent, a Spinning Mill, is managed by a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.2. A dispute had arisen as between the workmen and the management, the same had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the dispute, namely I.D. 15/1983, the management had sought approval of orders of dismissal of several workmen, including the petitioners herein. The management had also raised a contention that in view of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('KCS Act') the reference was not maintainable and that the dispute was not an industrial dispute. The Labour Court had rejected the application of the management seeking approval of the orders of dismissal by an order dated 19.1.1991 and had answered the reference in favour of the workmen. The management having challenged the Award before this Court in writ proceedings th...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Achar S/O P. Madavachar, Working as Clerk at Syndicate Bank, Tada ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2380; (2006)IIILLJ852Kant
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.07.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 27.10.1999, passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and also the order dated 11.05.2000 passed by the Revisional Authority in so far as it is adverse to the interest of the petitioner and for consequential reliefs.2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent-bank in the year 1972 as a clerk. In the year 1998, the petitioner was working in the respondent-bank in its branch office situated at Car Street, Udupi. The petitioner is an active member of the recognised Workmen Trade Union in the respondent-bank. During the year 1998, the petitioner was elected as Deputy General Secretary of the Trade union. During the year 1998, there were several demands raised by the Trade Union pending consideration...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar S/O. Nageshrao Marvelar Vs. the Special Divisional Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2586; 2007(3)KarLJ288
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. They are;(1) To declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated as per the order dated 10.09.1992 against the petitioner as null and void;(2) For a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.01.2001 passed by the Divisional Commissioner;(3) To quash the orders dated 31.03.1992 and 06.06.1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the third respondent -Syndicate Bank in the year 1980. Petitioner secured this appointment claiming to be a Scheduled Caste candidate belonging to Hindu-Bandi community. The Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada district, reported to me fourth respondent stating that the petitioner belongs to 'Baandhi' community which is not a Scheduled Caste community and that the same is backward class community. The fourth respondent, on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Co...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Yellamma Cotton Woolen and Silk Mills Vs. Regiona ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR194; 2006(4)KarLJ265; (2007)IIILLJ278Kant
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester yarn, is one of the units of National Textile Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking. In November, 1996, the petitioner had announced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the VRS' for brevity) for its employees. About 250 workmen, including respondents Nos. 2 to 26 opted for the Scheme. They were given all the assured benefits and retired from service.2. The said respondents Nos. 2 to 26 were all engaged as trainees, in the first instance and some were taken on Badli workmen Rolls, later and some were either confirmed or promoted or not at all. Some were even confirmed as permanent employees from trainee as detailed in the body of the petition.3. After a lapse of 30 months from the date of opting the VRS and having availed of all benefits without demur, had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Lingaiah S/O Hosalingaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its State Publ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR3305; 2006(5)KarLJ311
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. In both the appeals the appellants stood surety for the accused. The accused absconded. Surety bonds are forfeited, penalty of Rs. 20000/- is levied in each case and in default the trial court directed three months imprisonment.2. The provisions of Section 431 Cr.P.C. reads thus:431. Money ordered to be paid recoverable as a fine.- Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made under this code and the method of recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine:Provided that Section 421 shall, in its application to an order under Section 359, by virtue of this section, be construed as if in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 421, after the words and figures 'under Section 357', the words and figures 'or an order for payment of costs under Section 359' had been inserted.3. The above provisions declare that any money payable other than fine shall be recovered as it were a fine Under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Recon Machine Tools (P) Ltd. Represented by Its Director Vs. the Commi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Kar)184; ILR2006KAR2459; [2006]286ITR637(KAR); [2006]286ITR637(Karn)
1. The assessee by name M/s Recon Machine Tools (P) Limited is before us aggrieved by the orders of the assessing authority, appellate authority and also the order passed by the Tribunal.2. The appellant company is engaged in manufacturing machinery equipments. They are being used by the tin-container manufacturers and canning industries. An agreement for royalty was entered into between the appellant and M/s Results Engineers and Consultants in the matter of providing necessary technical advice to the company and the Company has agreed to pay royalty towards the service rendered by the Consultants.3. The assessing authority disallowed the claim of the royalty in terms of the orders passed by him. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner reversed the findings of the assessing authority in so far as sham transactions in his order. However, the Appellate Commissioner has chosen to provide 2 per cent relief as against 5 per c...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairman Anantha Krishna and ors. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ700; (2007)ILLJ116Kant
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The first and second petitioners are banking companies in the Private Sector governed by the provisions of the Banking Companies Regulation Act, 1949. Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 and petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 are employees of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.2. The banking activity carried on by petitioners 1 and 2 is the same as carried on by nationalised banks. There is no difference in this regard.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Employees Provident Funds and (Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) was made applicable to banks carrying on its business in any State or territory and having no operation or branch outside that State. By a notification dated 9.3.2000, the provisions of the Act have been made applicable to all non-nationalizedbanks in India. In view of this, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are now required to cover their eligible employees under the provisions of the Act. And by this, there w...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Represented by Its Deputy Manag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC779; 2006ACJ2596; AIR2006Kant237; 2006(4)KarLJ167
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The insurance company, which is fastened with the liability to compensation in respect of a deceased workman, is in appeal.2. The facts are as follows:The respondents No. 1 to 4 represent the deceased workman. The workman had died in an accident involving a Tempo tax which was being driven by him. He was employed by Respondent No. 5, who was the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant. The claim for compensation was resisted by the appellant mainly on the ground that the workman did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and hence the appellant was absolved of liability under the policy of insurance. The contention having been negatived by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the present appeal.3. Shri. A.M. Venkatesh, counsel for the appellant submits that the admitted fact is that the workman was holding a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles and the same was effective from 28.11.1995 t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri K.R. Janardhana Gupta S/O Kaparthi Rathnaiah Shetty Proprietor of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant243; ILR2006KAR168; 2006(5)KarLJ219
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act to set aside the order dated 18.2.2006 passed in HRC.NO. 232/2002 by the II Additional Small Causes Judge Bangalore and to allow the eviction petition filed by the respondent.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel representing the respondent.3. The brief facts of the case before entering into the discussion based on the arguments are as under:The respondent-tenant herein filed petition against the petitioner-landlord under Section 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 for eviction from the petition schedule premises that is, ground floor portion of the premises at out house No. 99, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi Bangalore. According to the landlord property bearing No. 99 and 100 of the Surveyors Street consists of an outhouse in the ground floor at No. 99 and first floor at No. 100. They are in dangerous and dilapidated condition and the sch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »