Karnataka Court January 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited Represented by Its General Manager (F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1175]; ILR2008KAR1795; (2008)IIILLJ446Kant; 2008LabIC(NOC)796(Kar)
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. An award dated 22nd April 2006 in IDR No. 74/2002 on the file of Labour Court, Chikmagalur is called to question by Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited.2. The respondent claiming to be a workman, alleged that she had worked as a Literate Assistant on daily wages w.e.f. 16.4.1980 till 25.5.1989 and she was removed from the service without any enquiry and alleged that it is an unfair labour practice, arbitrary and malafide and amounts to victimization. In this regard, the respondent approached the Conciliation Officer. On failure of the conciliation, the matter was referred to the State Government The State Government by order dated 5.9.2002 referred the matter to the Labour Court The claim petition of the respondent was contested by filing a counter statement by the petitioner. In the counter statement, it is alleged that the petitioner is not an industry and appointments to the post are governed by the rules and regulations and also alleged that the Labour Court ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Deputy Manager Vs. Smt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1147]; 2008(4)KarLJ756; (2009)ILLJ59Kant; 2008(2)KCCR691; 2008(3)AIRKarR30; 2008LabIC(NOC)685(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This Appeal is by the insurer challenging the liability fixed on it to pay compensation of Rs. 1,97,060/- by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bellary, in WCA/F.197/99 on the ground that the 1st respondent being the wife of late Chandrachari died while travelling in a goods vehicle stated to be a labourer under deceased 2nd respondent-Veerapp, but the documents produced by 1st respondent clearly show that late Chandrachari was working as a sampler in Kapataswamy Mines. Therefore, the death of Chandrachari while discharging duty under the employment of deceased 2nd respondent does not arise. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the liability fixed on the appellant-insurer is liable to be set aside.2. The case of the 1st respondent-claimant in that she is the legally wedded wife of late Chandrachari. Her deceased husband was working as a coolie under 2nd respondent. On that fateful day i.e.,...
Nagamma and ors. Vs. R. Chandramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ264
K. Ramanna, J.1. All these 3 appeals are filed by the L.Rs. of late Puttaiah and other injured claimants against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in its judgment and award dated 27.11.2002 whereby, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur, allowed the claim petitions in all the three cases and directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation.2. The appellants in M.F.A. No. 647 of 2003 are the wife and children of late Puttaiah who is stated to be the coolie working under the respondent as loader and unloader, died on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by respondent No. 2 resulting in accident that occurred on 4.7.1998. The appellants in M.F.A. Nos. 645 and 646 of 2003 suffered various type of injuries in the said accident. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. KA 02-833 and 834 which wa...
Dickenson Fowler Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST454(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax dated September 21, 1995 passed in case No. SMR/KST/BD/CR-02/2005-06. The assessee herein entered into an agreement with the ITC Limited on March 5, 2001 for setting up a cut tobacco and cigarette manufacturing facility at Meenakunte village, Bangalore North Taluk, including, inter alia, the primary manufacturing department consisting of new plant, machinery, equipment and apparatus as well as certain items of new plant, machinery, equipment, apparatus relocated from its existing facility at Pulikeshinagar, Bangalore, which requires the supply, refurbishment, delivery, installation, testing and commissioning at site of all material, plant, machinery, equipment, apparatus, structures, tools supplies and such other goods as well as refurbishment and relocation as aforesaid, which together would constitute the scope of the aforesaid agreement.2. For the assessm...
Sri. M.R. Lakshmanappa S/O Ramaiah Vs. Sri Ramachandra Bhat S/O Shanka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1157; 2008(4)KarLJ254; 2008(1)KCCR290; 2008(2)AIRKarR266; AIR2008NOC1242; 2008(3)ICC578; 2008AIHC1678(Kar)
ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is 1st defendant in O.S. No. 2675/04, on the file of the 24th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, filed by the respondent, for cancellation of the sale deed dated 05.06.2003 and for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15.04.2001 or in the alternative for a decree to refund the money paid under the agreement, along with interest at 24% per annum, from the date of filing the suit till the date of realisation.2. Respondent/plaintiff had filed IA 2, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for an order of temporary injunction, restraining the 2nd defendant in the suit, from putting up any further construction on the suit schedule property. IA 3 was filed by him, under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for an order of attachment before judgment, on the property described in the schedule of the application. The trial Court, by its ad-interim order dated 17.04.2004 had allowed, both the...
Mysore Spun Silks Private Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ374; 2008(1)KCCR273; 2008(2)AIRKarR455; 2008AIHC(NOC)692(Kar)
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The facts are as follows:The petitioner is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, as a small scale industry. The petitioner had availed of a term loan from the respondent, Karnataka State Financial Corporation.3. The petitioner defaulted in the repayment of the loan and the petitioner therefore, took the benefit of a 'One Time Settlement Scheme' (OTS Scheme) in the year 2003-04 and sought for being accepted to settle its due under the said scheme. Accordingly, under a letter dated 13.4.2004, which is at Annexure-B to the petition, the proposal of the petitioner was accepted to close its account under the OTS Scheme. Incidentally, the petitioner was entitled to certain subsidies from the State Government as well as the Central Government.4. It is the petitioner's contention that any such subsidy received from the respective Governments was being utilised towards repayment of the term loan. Keeping this in vi...
Sri Ramu Solanke and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Principal Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR606; 2008(5)KLJ18; 2008(2)KCCR838; 2008(2)AIRKarR537
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification at Annexure 'E' dated 19.7.2007 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 whereby tenders have been invited for lease of Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Raibag, Belgaum District, under lease, rehabilitated, operate and transfer (for short 'LROT') basis for a period of 30 (thirty) years starting from the year 2007-08 to 2036-37. The petitioners have also challenged the proceedings of the State Government at Annexure 'G' dated 5.8.2006 whereby the State Government has decided to revive the aforesaid sugar factory by way of lease on the model of Srirama Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited and the Government Order at Annexure 'H' dated 16.1.2007 deciding to lease the aforesaid sugar factory for a period of 30 years on LROT basis.2. The petitioners are the shareholders and members of the 4th respondent-Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Raibag, Belgaum District, ('for short '...
Sri Ramu Solanke S/O Solankee, Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Principal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)KarLJ18; ILR2008(1)Kar606; 2008(2)KCCR838; 2008(2)AIRKarR537
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification at Annexure 'E' dated 19.7.2007 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 whereby tenders have been invited for lease of Ratbag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Raibag, Belgaum District, under lease, rehabilitated, operate and transfer (for short 'LROT') basis for a period of 30 (thirty) years starting from the year 2007-08 to 2036-37. The petitioners have also challenged the proceedings of the State Government at Annexure 'G' dated 5.8.2006 whereby the State Government has decided to revive the aforesaid sugar factory by way of lease on the model of Srirama Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited and the Government Order at Annexure 'H' dated 16.1.2007 deciding to lease the aforesaid sugar factory for a period of 30 years on LROT basis.2. The petitioners are the shareholders and members of the 4th respondent-Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Ratbag. Belgaum District ('for short 's...
M.T. Belliappa S/O. Thimmaiah Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Spp
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1977; ILR2008KAR1068; 2008(3)KarLJ713; 2008(1)KCCR264; 2008(2)AIRKarR510; 2008(2)AICLR611
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 22302/2007 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore city, for the offence under Sections 341 and 352 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing the proceedings on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 02.08.2005 at 4.45 p.m. Complaint came to be lodged with the police station on 28.02.2006. After investigation, on 04.06.2007, the police laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 341 and 352 of IPC. On the same day, after perusing the chargesheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and ordered to register the case and issue summons. He further submits that since the offence under Section 341 is punishable with S.I. for one month and the offence under Section 352 is punishable with imprisonment for three months, t...
The Managing Director, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited Represented b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR669]; ILR2008KAR1597; 2008(4)KarLJ26; (2009)ILLJ568Kant; 2008(6)KLJ451; 2008(1)KCCRSN51; 2008(2)AIRKarR481; 2008LabIC(NOC)560(Kar); 2008-III-LLJ-433
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Award dated 8th May 2007 in Ref. No. 194/2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Gulbarga is called in question.2. Respondent claimed to be a workman, he alleges that, he was engaged as a work Inspector on daily wages from 1.12.1983 and was working continuously till 1.8.1965, and has completed 240 days of continuous service without break and entitled for regularisation of his service.3. The respondent sought for conciliation of the proceedings and on failure, the matter was referred to the government and the Government made reference by order dated 7.7.2003. He alleged that, he was making representation and he was under bonafide impression that an older of termination is necessary for raising a dispute or seeking reference. In this regard, there has been delay in seeking the reference. The said claim petition was opposed by the petitioner interatia alleging that, no records are available to show that the respondent had worked for 240 days. A specific contention ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »