Karnataka Court February 2009 Judgments
Karnataka Woods and Plywoods Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(171)LC1(Karnataka); 2009(4)KarLJ683
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a manufacturer of Block Boards and timber boards in respect of which the petitioner-a private company was being assessed to duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood at the relevant point of time and as amended (referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter) within the jurisdiction of the third respondent viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise at Mangalore.2. The petitioner in respect of the period from July 1991 to November 1991 had cleared the manufactured goods by paying duty provisionally and cleared the goods on self-assessment by filing RT-12 returns as envisaged under Rule 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and referred to as the Rules, indicating the duty liability as nil in the light of a claim of the petitioner that the goods are not dutiable having been provisionally accepted.3. The provisional clearance was on the premise that the goods manufactured by the petitioner were to be classified u...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Staff and Workers Federation (Aituc) Vs. Management of K.S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ881Kant
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant who has lost his writ petition before the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 27178/2003 dated March 8, 2007 is questioning the legality and correctness of the order in dismissing the petition.2. Facts leading to this case are:Appellant as General Secretary of KSRTC Staff and. Workers Federation (AITUC) filed writ petition challenging the award rejecting the reference by the Labour Court, Mangalore in Ref. No. (LCM) 42/01 wherein the request of the petitioner for reinstatement and regularisation of service of four workmen was rejected. Earlier, petitioner had raised a dispute in Ref. No. 44/93 and the same was referred to the Labour Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid dispute, workmen were terminated from the services. Therefore Labour Court by its order dated September 11, 2000 held that reference was not maintainable on account of the termination of those four workmen. However, liberty was granted to raise a fresh dispute and seek redressal of ...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Girish and anr. Vs. the Management of Bpl Limited and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ220; 2009(5)AIRKarR66
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23-9-2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in Serial Application Nos. 1 of 2000 and 24 of 2000 produced at Annexure-M.2. Brief facts leading to this case are that, the respondent-management runs 12 units in and around Bangalore and all the employees of the 12 units are represented by one union. The said union placed chartered of demands before the management. When the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer in connection with the charter of demands, an unwanted incident of burning of bus carrying the employees of the respondent-industry took place and in the said incident, two employees succumbed to the injury on 25-3-1999 at Madiwala. In this regard, the police registered a criminal case showing these petitioners as accused 29 and 30. The respondent--Management in view of the charge-sheet having been filed against the petitioners and others dismissed the petitioners and thereafter m...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Sri Y. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST194(Karn)
1. Sri B.G.Chidananda Urs, learned Counsel appeared for the appellant Smt. Geetha Menon, learned Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.2. This order shall also govern disposal of S.T.A. No. 17/ 2006 as in both the appeals common questions of facts and law are involved. Thus they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common consolidated judgment.3. This and the connected appeal have been preferred under Section 66 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 (hereinafter for brevity shall be called as 'the Act'), against the order dated 29.09.2005 passed by Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings created under Section 60 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority). The appellant had also filed an application for rectification of the order dated 29.09.2005 by moving another application before the authority on 27.10.2005. By subsequent order passed by the Authority, clarification has been issued mentioning therein that the rate of tax would be 4%. A...
Tag this Judgment!R. Dilip Kumar Vs. Karnataka State Finance Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas427(Kar)
Deepak Verma, J.1. As per office note, this appeal is barred by 37 days. M.C.A. No. 2046 of 2009 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Before issuance of the notice of the said application, we thought it fit to hear learned Counsel for the appellant, on merits. That is how we have heard him. Record perused.2. The appellant herein had moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned company judge in Company Application No. 167 of 2004 on June 1, 2004.3. The appellant claims to be one of the directors of M/s. Deepthi Cements P. Ltd., which has been directed to be wound up in terms of the order passed by the learned company judge on September 15, 1995, passed in Company Petition No. 158 of 1992.4. Prayer of the appellant before the learned company judge and reiterated before us in this appeal was that the appellant should have been given an opportu...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Bhaskar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Auth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1483; 2009(5)KarLJ337; 2009(2)KCCR1427; 2009(5)AIRKarR36; AIR2009NOC2682;
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions, have challenged the Notification dated 17.11.2008 and 3.1.2009 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority inviting tenders only through Electronic Tendering system.2. The petitioners are all contractors who have obtained valid license from the competent authority to carry out the contract work. Bangalore Development Authority floated a Notification on 17.11.2008 and 3.1.2009 for electrical works to be carried out in the layout formed by them within the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike inviting tenders only through Electronic Tendering System. The petitioners who intended to participate in the said tender process, are challenging the entire electronic tendering system adopted by the Bangalore Development Authority as one without the authority of law. They have also urged several other grounds for seeking quashing of the impugned Notifications.3. After service of notice, the Bangalore Development Authority h...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Prasanna Kumar Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)23VST426(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Shri M. Thirumalesh appeared for the appellant and Ms. Geetha Menon appeared for the respondents.2. This is an appeal under Section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against the order dated March 15, 2006-passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Bangalore, under the powers of suo motu revision exercised by him under Section 22A(1) of the Act.3. Notice was issued to the appellant-assessee proposing to take up the matter in suo motu revision against the appellate order dated February 10, 2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, on the ground that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The revisional authority had formulated a question to be answered by it, which reads thus:(1) Does the mixing of the asphalt, jelly and sand involve a manufacturing process resulting in the production of a product different from the ingredients used?4. While considering the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR3751; 2009(5)KarLJ119; 2009(2)KCCR1409
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Petitioner has called in question an order passed by 1st respondent dated 10th September, 2004 produced at Annexure-H.2. Second respondent-Union had made an application on 17-4-2001 to the first respondent inter alia seeking permission to prosecute the petitioner on the ground of violation of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short referred to as 'the Act'). In this regard, the State Government had called for a report from the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner by letter dated 7-8-2001 had submitted his report. Government held an enquiry and considering the respective contentions observed that the petitioner-management has violated the provisions of Section 25-M and in view of the power conferred under Section 34 read with Section 25-Q of the Act granted permission by the impugned order.3. Sri Nagabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, order of the first respondent produced at Annexure-H is per s...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Muralidhar and ors. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Bo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ78
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioners are questioning the legality and correctness of the notification issued by respondent 1 under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and notification dated 23-1-2006 issued under Section 28(1) of the Act and also notification dated 24-10-2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act as illegal, null and void.2. According to the petitioners, they are the co-owners of an immovable property bearing No. 21/24-1 situated at M.G. Road, Bangalore and they also claim that they have entered into an agreement to purchase the adjoining properties bearing No. 20/16 and No. 21 from the respective owners and that they have filed two suits to enforce the agreement of contract in O.S. Nos. 2357 and 2352 of 1985 and that the said two suits are still pending before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. Contending that these three properties are adjoining to each other and in all measuring 19297.58 square...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajkumar Vs. C.M. Abu Mohammed (Since Dead) by His L.Rs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ314
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2-2-2009 passed in Misc. No. 1029 of 2009 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore. By the said order the miscellaneous petition has been dismissed.2. The relevant facts of the case are that O.S. No. 16707 of 2002 is pending on the file of CCH-20 Mayo Hall Unit at Bangalore. The said suit is for ejectment of the petitioner herein and the same has been filed by the respondents herein. The Original Suit No. 16483 of 2001 is pending in CCH-29 Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore and the said suit is for partition and separate possession. The relief claimed by the petitioner herein in the miscellaneous petition filed before the Principal City Civil Judge.-Bangalore was for transfer of O.S. No. 16707 of 2002 pending on the file of CCH-20 to any other Court after clubbing the same with O.S. No. 16483 of 2001. However, during the course of submission before this Court, it has been ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »