Karnataka Court April 2007 Judgments
Mico Employees Association Vs. Asstt. Cit (Tds)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: [2007]292ITR567(KAR); [2007]292ITR567(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J.1. MICO Employees Association is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated May 26, 2006, passed in I. T. A. No. 411/ B/2001 and I. T. A. No. 414/B/2001. The appellant is a registered trade union operating in MICO Industrial Establishment, Bangalore. The members of MICO are hereinafter called as 'the association'. The members of the association are the employees of MICO. The association has entered into an agreement with MICO. One of the terms of the agreement was to increase medical benefits from the level of Rs. 3,500 per annum to Rs. 9,000. The said increase was given in the light of increasing cost. The respondent conducted a survey in the premises of MICO in the various aspects of TDS. The respondent concluded that MICO has paid medical reimbursement to all its employees without fulfilling the conditions as laid down in Section 17(2)(v). The respondent treated MICO as a defaulter under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act. The respondent asked them to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Shankarappa Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ556; ILR2007(2)Kar21122007(3)KCCRSN208; 2007(4)AIRKarR137(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-7-2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant as well as the order dated 16-10-2006 dismissing the review petition, the present appeal is filed,2. The appellant who is admittedly a former Zilla Panchayat member had got the land Survey No. 55 of Mulbagal Taluk measuring 25 x 14 meters granted by the Kolar Zilla Panchayat on 7-7-1989 for a consideration of Rs. 5,075.84 under Section 222 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As previous sanction of the Government for such transaction is necessary, the matter was forwarded to the Government and the Government did not approve the resolution. Inspite of the same, the Kolar Zilla Panchayat passed another resolution dated 15-10-1997 reiterating the resolution dated 7-7-1989 and the grant in favour of the appellant was made. On coming to know of this order, th...
Tag this Judgment!Unity Service Station Indian Oil Dealers Rep. by Its Partners Sri J.S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR74(Kar); ILR2007KAR3431; 2007(6)KarLJ224
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner has entered into petrol/HSD pump dealer agreement (for short 'agreement') with the 1st respondent corporation as per Annexure-A on 13.9.2004 for establishment of retail outlet for sale of Motor Spirit/High Speed Diesel. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities while selling the MS/HSD in its outlet. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 22.12.2005 calling upon him as to why the agreement should not he terminated. The Petitioner has sent detailed reply on 22.12.2005 as per Annexure-G. One more show-cause notice as per Annexure-J dated 7.4.2006 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has sent a reply as per Annexure-E. Considering the reply filed by the petitioner, respondent has passed an order as per Annexure-M dated 1.6.2006 terminating the agreement. The operative portion of the order is as under:On careful analysis and detailed consideration of all th...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Mysore Rural Division by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AIRKarR512
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 12.8.2006 passed in I.I.D. No. 176/2002 on the file of Labour Court, Mysore and Complaint No. 4/2006.2. The first respondent was working as a driver in the petitioners-Corporation. He was terminated from service by order dated 7.2.2002 and in this regard on 23.5.2002 as per Annexure 'C', the respondent-workman had made a representation. Interalia, stating that, the enquiry officer has pointed out that, the irregularity and illegality has been committed by the officers of the Corporation and the officers in order to hide the irregularity and illegality, they have rejected the enquiry officer's report and have discriminated the similarly placed employees in the matter imposing punishment and in this regard, the respondent called upon the Corporation to invoke the provision of Regulation 35 of the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter called a...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Carmel Society and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ56; ILR2007(2)Kar1989; 2007(5)KLJ56; 2007(3)KCCR1728; 2007(4)AIRKarR1
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In these petitions, petitioners have challenged the amendment of the Karnataka Societies Registration (Amendment) Rules, 2002 as per notification dated 30-3-2002 and have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari challenging the same as constitutionally impermissible beyond the rule making power as provided under Section 30 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 as unenforceable against the petitioners and to direct the respective respondents-Registrar to refund the filing fees if already paid by such of the petitioners.2. Petitioners are Societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Section 30 of the Act provides power to make Rules for the State Government by publishing the same in the Official Gazette by way of a notification to carry out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of such powers under Section 30, acting under various provisions of the Act, the State Government can frame Rules to fix such fees and fines for vario...
Tag this Judgment!Sri B.R. Arunkumar S/of Late Rathnam Shetty Vs. Smt. Yeshodha W/of Lat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ631; 2007(4)KCCRSN289; 2007(6)AIRKarR186
ORDERJustice K. Ramanna, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the unsuccessful tenant-revision petitioner to set aside the order dated 15.2.2005 passed by the II Addl. small causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC. No. 644/2000 whereby and where under the court-below allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent in part under Section 27(2) (r) and 31 of K.R. Act of 1999 but dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 27(2)(a) and (m) of K.R. Act of 1999. Further the revision petitioner-tenant was directed to quit and vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 15.4.2005. Assailing the same, he has come up with this revision petition.2. The case of the respondent herein is that she is the owner of the petition schedule premises namely, P-15, 2nd Cross, 4th Main, Nagappa Block, Bangalore - 560 021 which is called as 'Rama Nilaya.' The revision petitioner is a tenant who is in occupation of the said premises who had entered into an agreement dated 8.6.1997 for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›