Karnataka Court February 2007 Judgments
The Himalaya Drug Co., Represented by Sri. K.G. Umesh, Head - Human Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR527(1)]; 2007(3)KarLJ386; (2007)IIILLJ117aKant; 2007(3)KCCR1605
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the common order dated 5th February 2007 passed in Addl. Industrial Dispute No. 13 and 14/2006 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore.2. The State Government referred the dispute in AID No. 13/2006 and AID No. 14/2006 to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on the question of legality of the transfer of 7 workmen in AID No. 13/2006 and 8 workmen in AID No. 14/2006. In the said dispute, an application was filed in A.I.D.No. 13/2006 by the respondent - Union interalia seeking direction to the Management to permit all the workmen to resume their usual work in the factory. The said application was opposed by the Management. The Industrial Tribunal issued an interim direction directing the workmen in both the disputes to report to the duty before 13.2.2007 by giving an undertaking, that their reporting is subject to the decision of the dispute and also directed that the workmen will turn up the normal wo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Chowdegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2812; 2007(6)KarLJ191; ILR2007(2)Kar2117; 2007(3)AIRKarR576(DB)
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This case pertains to the death of an unfortunate soul by name Mahadevamma, daughter of complainant Iregowda who met with an untimely death within four years of her marriage. 1st and 2nd respondent-accused are the in-laws of victim Mahadevamma, 3rd respondent is the husband of deceased and respondents 4 and 5 are her brothers-in-law. The case of the prosecution is, at the time of negotiation of marriage talks for the marriage of deceased with 3rd respondent, there was a demand of dowry by way of cash and also gold. Ultimately, it was decided to give Rs. 20,000/- cash as dowry apart from 6 tolas of gold. As per the talks said amount came to be paid prior to the marriage itself and the gold ornaments were given in two in-stallments, i.e. some at the time of marriage and some subsequent to marriage as well. Even at the time of nuptial ceremony, there was harassment from respondent No. 3 with the demand of gold chain, according to the prosecution. It is not in dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumantha Rao Kulkarni Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ543; 2008(3)KCCR1821; 2008(5)AIRKarR382(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11230 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. The appellant was appointed as Additional Government Pleader at Yadgiri in Gulbarga District vide Annexure-A notification dated 15-9-2001. The said appointment was for a period of three years from the date of Annexure-A notification or until further orders whichever was earlier. Thereafter, vide Annexure-B notification dated 20-1-2005, the appointment of the appellant was extended for a further period of three years from 15-9-2004 or until further orders whichever was earlier. Admittedly, Annexure-A and B notifications were issued under the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 (for short, the 'Rules'). It is clear from Annexure-B notification that the appointment was not a fresh appointment under Rule 26 of the Rules and that it was only an extension of the period of appointment already given under Annexure-A n...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjuna H.C. Vs. the Registrar, Gulbarga University, 'Jnana Ganga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ357
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against a common judgment in W.Ps. No. 25194/2005 and 29/2006 which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant in the writ appeals is the petitioner in the writ petitions.2. The appellant was admitted to M.Sc. (Industrial Chemistry) Course on 04.07.2005 at the Post Graduate Centre of the Gulbarga University at Bellary. M.Sc. (Industrial Chemistry) is a two years (4 semesters) course. Even though the appellant was admitted to the 1st semester on 04.07.2005, he was not issued hall ticket to appear in the 1st semester examination. Hence, he filed W.P. No. 25194/2005 praying for a direction to the respondents to permit him to appear in the examination scheduled to commence from 24.11.2005. By an interim order passed in the said writ petition, the respondents were directed to permit the appellant to appear in the 1st semester examination and accordingly he was permitted to appear in the examination. However, the results of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Aditya Horologicals Limited, Represented by Its Mana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR316]; 2007(4)KarLJ513; ILR2007(2)Kar2013; 2007(3)KCCRSN106; 2007(3)AIRKarR338; 2007IIILLJ687
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the award dated 16.3.2002 in Reference No. 49/1994, I.D. Nos. 4/94, 5/94, 6/94, 7/94 and 23/94 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore. Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 sought for reference of their dispute under Section 10-1(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The State Government by its order dated 22.8.1994 referred the dispute of respondent Nos. 1 to 11. Some of the respondents namely, respondent Nos. 12 to 16, who were also party in the reference made by the State Government, also raised individual dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. The State Government referred the point of dispute as under:1. Are the Management of M/s. Adithya Horologicals Ltd., Doddaballapur justified in retrenching the following workmen after declaring the lay off:1. D.K. Narayanaswamy, 2. K.V. Ramanjinappa, 3. M. Rajanna 4. N. Shivashankar 5. T. Prakash, 6. T.D. Venkatachalaiah, 7. B. Shivakumar, 8. M.A. S...
Tag this Judgment!Shri N. Sreenivasa S/O Shri R. Narayana Shetty Vs. Kuttukaran Machine ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR445(Kar); 2007(5)KarLJ352; ILR2007(2)Kar2200
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.2. The case of the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement of sale dated 21th December, 2005 for purchase of the property bearing plot No. 19-A, Peenya II Phase, Industrial Area, which is morefully described in the schedule to the agreement of sale and for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule property' for a consideration of Rs. 6,99,04,079-00. A copy of the agreement is produced as Annexure-A. Clause 9 of the said agreement provides for resolution of dispute arising out of the agreement by way of arbitration. It is his further case that in terms of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,250-00 was paid by the petitioner to the respondent as advance by way of cheque, which has been duty encashed by the respondent. Sixty days time was s...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.R. Katti Scientist-d Sericulture Division Karnataka State Sericu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(2)Kar1349; 2007(3)KCCRSN108; 2007(3)AIRKarR211
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 5.1.2007 issued by first respondent vide Annexure-A as the same is illegal and contrary to law and facts, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the 1st respondent to appoint a candidate as Director of the Institute in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of 1998.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, second respondent has been appointed as Director of the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute (in short Institute) for the period of five years on 24.2.2001. After the expiry of the said period of five years, once again, he has been continued as Director of the said Institute until further orders, by notification dated 23.2.2006. Be that as it may. The first respondent herein has issued Notification dated 3.5.2006 vide Annexure-D, cancelling the notification issued on 23.2.200...
Tag this Judgment!Veerayya S/O Veerabhadrayya Saraganachari Vs. the Asst Commissioner Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1140
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by a person who had filed an application under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [for short the Act'] before the Assistant Commissioner and was successful in that effort in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy. No. 111/2 of Sulibhavi Village, Hungund Taluk, but was deprived of this benefit by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in terms of its order dated 7-3-2005 passed in Appeal No. 683/2002 at the instance of respondents 2 to 5 who had claimed to be landlords of the land in question and who had contended that the petitioner was not a tenant at all.2. The Tribunal in coming to such conclusion relied upon earlier proceedings before the Munsiff court, Hungund, in OS No. 6/1975 which though was a suit inter se amongst the respondents 2 to 5 and their predecessors, the petitioner was, nevertheless, a party as a defendant to the suit and one of the issues in the suit was as to whether the petitioner was a tenant in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!institute for Social and Economic Change by Its Registrar - Sri H.N. R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KCCR1588; 2007(3)AIRKarR116.
ORDErH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings in Case No. 2584/2002 as without jurisdiction and arbitrary and to quash the show cause notice dated 20.6.2002 at annexure A and to quash the summons dated 18.7.2003 - annexure E as without jurisdiction.2. The petitioner is said to be a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act according to the petitioner, the Institute does not receive any funds from the Central Government but, it is partly receiving funds by the State Government and other agencies and that it is not a department of the Central or State Government.3. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent/Chief Commissioner acting under Section 57 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, has registered a case against the petitioner in No. 2584/2002 and also a show cause notice was issued stating that as per the notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mico Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Kar)377
1. The assessee company entered into an agreement with Ghaziabad Engineering Company Private Ltd., on 9-2-1977 to get some services rendered by them for which the assessee had to pay a consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/- per year. The tenure of the contract was two years and fees had to be made in advance. The first installment was payable on 19-2-1977 and the second, a year after. Thereafter deduction was claimed by the assessee relating to the second installment as it fell during the period of account. Disallowance was made in the assessment on the ground that there was No. supporting evidence proving performance of the contract by GEC. The tribunal noticed on an earlier occasion this very issue and remitted the matter back to the commissioner for reconsideration. The remand is for the reasons mentioned in detail in the order of the tribunal. The tribunal did not accept the contention of the assessee. The assessee claimed sum of Rs. 33,00,000/- being the installment payment made to GEC. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »