Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1966(12)FLR413]; (1967)ILLJ49Kant; (1966)1MysLJ465
..... of the opinion that the petitioner has misunderstood the scope of the standing orders. those orders merely deal with matters enumerated in the schedule to the act. the act requires the employer to define and lay down in clear terms the conditions of work in his industrial establishment in respect of the matters enumerated in the ..... with such model.' 32. section 4 of that lays down the conditions for certification of standing orders. that section says : 'standing orders shall be certifiable under this act if - (a) provision is made therein for every matter set out in the schedule which is applicable to the industrial establishment, and (b) the standing orders ..... are otherwise in conformity with the provisions of this act; and it shall be function of the certifying officer or appellate authority to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the provisions of any standing orders.' 33 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant5; AIR1966Mys5; ILR1965KAR143; (1965)1MysLJ223
..... the aspects of the question raised by krishnaswami rao viz., whether the sub-collector and the district collector functioning under the provisions of the madras agriculturists relief act, 1938 were civil courts and if so whether those courts were subordinate to the high court under section 115 of the code. in considering this question ..... only illustrative and not exhaustive of other categories of courts subordinate to the high court.(8) mr. krishnaswami rao does not dispute the fact that under the act the mamlatdar and the assistant commissioner exercising their respective powers are courts. i have already referred to s. 23(3) where express provision has been made ..... favour of the respondent since the tahsildar declined to certify the sub-leas as being in contravention of the provisions of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, and he never delivered possession in pursuance of that document. the respondent however, contended that he had been put in possession and had been cultivating .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ156Kant
..... for corroboration. see in this connexion basavarajappa case [1964 mys. l.j. 314] (vide supra) where it has been observed that the enquiry officers can act on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of accomplices or partisan witnesses. in america also, it appears that in departmental proceedings, the finding can be based on the ..... there might have been the danger of the disappearance of valuable evidence; further, if the investigation for the purposes of prosecution under the prevention of corruption act had been deferred until the departmental enquiry was over, then it would lay itself open to the objection that there was considerable delay in commencing the investigation ..... by the learned advocate in the course of his arguments that the petitioner should have been first prosecuted under the provisions of the prevention of corruption act and that when he has instead been proceeded against departmentally, he had been put into a position of disadvantage, inasmuch as the safeguards available in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1984Kant153
..... amend entry, it is incumbent for the plaintiff to file, a suit for declaration of his right and take steps in accordance with section 135 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964, if he so, desires. hence, the suit for declaration is maintainable.29. in the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. plaintiff's suit is partly ..... ) must not only show that he has a title, but that he has a subsisting title which he has not lost by the presetiptive sections of the limitation act. a 'subsisting title means that the title is not in any way transferred or exlinguished or lost by adverse possession in favour of a stranger. secretary of state ..... limitation and prescription, volume 1, tagore lectures, 1882, brought out in 1932, at pace101, speaking about accrual of cause of action, under corresponding provisions of the old limitation act, viz., article 120, has observed thus:'onus in suits for declaration or possession :- as a general rule, a plaintiff (in a suit for a declaration of title or .....
Tag this Judgment!