Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: appropriation railways act 2006 Court: karnataka Page 88 of about 9,415 results (0.069 seconds)

Workmen of Bata India Limited, Represented by Its General Secretary, B ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007KAR615; 2007(1)KCCR77; 2007(1)AIRKarR616

..... the standing orders and settlements provide for remedies which include disciplinary action, claim for damages on partial failure of consideration and complaining of unfair labour practice in terms of the act.in the absence of a specific term in the settlement or statutory provision an employer has no right to reduce the wages or emoluments on the allegation that the workers had resorted to go-slow tactics or had not performed ..... is reserved to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if they ..... terms of settlement, deduction can be made from the wages payable to an employee as specified in section 7 of the payment of wages act, firstly, the provisions of payment of wages act do not apply to the workmen in question since all of them are drawing more than rs. ..... further, section 7 of the payment of wages act do not specify deduction of pro-rata wages on the ..... for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.1.2002 passed by the 1st respondent-labour commissioner rejecting the claim of the petitioners under section 33-c(1) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short the 'act').2. ..... between the petitioner-union and the 2nd respondent requires enquiry and therefore the same cannot be adjudicated by the 1st respondent under section 33-c(1) of the act. ..... respondent is that there is dispute between the parties with regard to go-slow and pro-rata deduction and therefore the same cannot be determined and adjudicated under section 33-c(1) of the act. .....

Mac Explotec (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (2006)203CTR(Kar)409; [2006]286ITR378(KAR); [2006]286ITR378(Karn)

..... light of the case laws available on record and in the light of the given circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to make out a case for the purpose of deduction in terms of section 37 of the act, the questions of law as referred to us are answered against the assesses and in favour of the revenue.14. ..... act. .....

M.L. Balaram, Proprietor, Vishnu Exports International Vs. Union of In ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2006(200)ELT12(Kar); [2006]70SCL8(Kar)

..... before the enforcement directorate arising under the provisions of fera/fema are entirely independent and different from the proceedings on hand which are arising out of the customs act relating to drawback amount and that therefore, even if the enforcement directorate has dropped the proceedings against the petitioner, the proceedings on hand remain unaffected.5. ..... exporter of the ready-made garments availed the services of the canara bank overseas branch, bangalore, an authorised dealer under the foreign exchange regulation act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'fera' for short) to deal with the export documents of the petitioner's establishment. ..... enforcement directorate initiated under section 50 & 51 of the 'fera' 1973 are dropped, the same will not vitiate or affect the proceedings arising under the provisions of section 75(1) of the customs act 1962 read with rule 16-a of the customs & central excise duty drawback rules-1995. ..... and claimed drawback concession under section 75 of the customs act 1962 and the same has been sanctioned and paid to ..... sale proceeds in respect of the goods exported had not been received within the stipulated time (six months) provided under 'fera' and the foreign exchange management act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'fema' for short). ..... the proviso to section 75 of the customs act read with rule-8 of foreign exchange rules-1974 make it clear that the drawback amount shall be disallowed if the full export value of the goods exported is not received by .....

The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (2006)205CTR(Kar)582; [2006]287ITR263(KAR); [2006]287ITR263(Karn)

..... by the assessee as interest from fixed deposit made by the assessee in four banks who are members in the assessee club amounted to its income and constituted a revenue receipt as per the provision of the income tax act.2. ..... the assessee is a club registered under the societies registration act. .....

H. Ramappa S/O Hanumanthappa and ors. Vs. the General Manager, Sri Yel ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2008(117)FLR863]; (2008)IILLJ737Kant; 2007(4)KCCRSN301

..... , by order dated 30.5.2006, held that trainees could at best, be considered as workmen in terms of the definition under section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, but in the absence of any statutory provision under the act, a trainee cannot be entitled to wages like regular employees, which would render the tenor of section 2 (e) of the act entirely unfavourable to employees. ..... construing section 4 in the light of the definition of employee in section 2(e) is to hold that a person whose services are terminated for any of the reasons mentioned in section 4(1), after the coming into force of the act, is entitled to the payment of gratuity, if he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, for that period during which he satisfied the definition of employee under section 2(e) of the ..... regretted that the government waited for a period of three years before introducing the payment of gratuity (amendment) bill 1984 to remove the lacuna in the definition of continuous service in section 2(c) of the act by specifically providing that a period of absence in respect of which no punishment or penalty has been imposed would not operate to interrupt the continuity of service for the purpose of payment of gratuity. ..... in view of the above findings, we pass the following order:1) the writ appeal is allowed.2) the order dated 30.5.2006 passed by the learned single judge in w.p.16581/01 is hereby set aside.3) the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent employer stands .....

Future Metal Private Limited Represented by Its Chairman Mr. Naveen Sr ...

Court : Karnataka

..... it is apparent from the reading of the said observations of the apex court that the power that is exercised under section 11(6) of the act by the chief justice or his designate is not the power exercised by them and is not governed by the normal procedure of this court as well as the power ..... proceedings, which are pending inter se between the petitioner as well as the respondent would relate to proceedings under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, where certain cheques issued, which were presented for realisation have been dis-honoured. ..... aforesaid extract from the decision of the apex court, it becomes abundantly clear that the powers under section 11(6) of the act is not conferred on the high court, but is conferred on the chief justice of the high court. ..... they have been conferred the power or the right to pass an order contemplated by section 11 of the act we have already seen that it is not possible to envisage that the power is conferred on the chief ..... the specific case made out by the petitioner in the petition under section 11(5) of the act is that in the year 2005 the respondent contacted the petitioner with a request to assist the respondent in the business of merchandising trade transactions for the purpose of purchasing metal scrap from overseas ..... question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether an order passed under section 11(6) of the act would amount to an order passed by the high court or for that matter a court. ..... air 2006 sc 450 .....

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. A. Mahesh Raj

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2006(195)ELT261(Kar)

..... of the petitioner, submits that the impugned order of the settlement commission is liable to be quashed for the sole reason that the commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application of this nature; that the act of the respondent in not only mis-declaring the goods but also trying to smuggle the goods meant for commercial disposal as personal baggage clearly amounted to a deliberate mis-declaration, both with regard to goods ..... himself declared the same, but was later detected to have cleared the goods not only declared and goods that had been seized and action taken in terms of the provisions of the act and after show cause notice had been issued for levy of duty, proposing to levy penalty and also confiscation of seized goods and alter the respondent had also filed his objections to ..... the settlement commission can entertain an application only from such persons who approach the commission with application for settlement in a situation where they come up with true disclosure even before the act of evasion is detected by the department and not such persons who are fence sitters and to take their chance and after they are detected and proceeded against approach the settlement commission ..... adjudicating authority for the adjudication of the show cause notice and if need be by filing any additional explanation/objections to the same and to appear for such purpose before such authority on 15-2-2006 without waiting for any further issue of notice from the adjudicating authority. .....

V. Narayanaswamy Vs. Smt. Doddavenkatamma and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2006KAR983; 2006(1)KarLJ566

orderh.g. ramesh, j.1. this revision petition by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment dated 30-8-2003 passed by the lower appellate court dismissing his appeal in m.f.a. no. 22 of 2001 and affirming the order passed by the trial court dismissing the petition filed by him in miscellaneous no. 118 of 1995 under order 9, rule 4 (should be rule 9) of the code of civil procedure ('cpc') for setting aside of the order dated 18-9-1995 by which the suit in o.s. no. 23 of 1988 was dismissed for non-prosecution.2. i have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned orders.3. the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he could not be present in court on 18-9-1995 as he was engaged in a religious ceremony and that his counsel also could not be present when the suit was called on for hearing as he was engaged in munsiff's court at chintamani and as such no representation could be made on that day and hence the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. his absence and his counsel's absence was due to the aforesaid bona fide reasons and not intentional.4. the trial court as well as the lower appellate court did not accept the cause shown for non-appearance of the plaintiff on 18-9-1995 when the suit was set down for evidence. hence, this revision petition by the plaintiff.5. the only question for consideration in this revision is as to whether the petitioner (plaintiff) had shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 18-9-1995 to allow the application .....

Devaki Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2006(2)KarLJ113

..... further it is held that:if that decision has become final, then it will not be necessary again to refer the said issue to the land tribunal consequent on the amendment of section 133 of the act and by virtue of section 91 of the act 1 of 1974.the ratio of the law laid down by the full bench of this court as stated supra is squarely applicable to the instant case. ..... 587 (fb), wherein the full bench of this court has held that:if the tenancy dispute is decided in a civil suit prior to the coming into force of act 1 of 1974 the same is binding'. ..... respondent has filed the necessary petition before the authority and the same was referred to the munsiff court, sirsi, which has got the jurisdiction to decide the tenancy matters under mysore tenancy act, 1952. .....

B.K. Ningappa S/O Late Sri Kodappa and Jayanna S/O Late Sri Doddaninga ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2006(3)KarLJ438

..... the manner in which, the 4th respondent has proceeded to pass the order is one without application of mind and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the panchayat raj act and rules therefore, i am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the order passed by the 4th respondent is not sustainable.5. ..... the 4th respondent has got the power under the mandatory provisions of the panchayati raj act and rules, only to verify as to whether the katha registered is in accordance with law or not and he has no jurisdiction, as such, to give declaration declaring that the particular piece of land stands in the name of the predecessor of the ..... nor he has got any such power under the mandatory provisions of the panchayat raj act and rules. .....