1
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-20-1988
Reported in : ILR1989KAR792
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the two tenants who are aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.II In H.R.C. No.2228/84 dated 42-4-1985. The 1st respondent in this case was allotted the petition schedule house by the 2nd respondent.2. The facts of the case, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, are, briefly, as follows:In an earlier eviction petition filed in H.R.C. No. 19/83, the 1st respondent was the sole petitioner suing respondents-1 and 2 for eviction in respect of the same premises which is the subject matter of the subsequent eviction petition in H.R.C.No.2228/84. So far as the respondents are concerned, they are common to both H.R.C.Nos.19/83 and 2228/84.3. At some stage of the proceedings, the 1st respondent, who was the petitioner in H.R.C. 19/83 filed a memo on 16-7-1934 in Court (before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City) to the effect that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1988
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3222
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions were the Arrack Contractors in the various Taluks of the State during the Excise year 1985-1986 commencing from 1-7-1985 and ending on 30-6-1986. At the time when the excise contract was given to the petitioners, the rate per bulk litre for supply of arrack was Rs. 4/-. However, it was tried to be raised to Rs. 6/- per bulk litre and it was tried to be collected from 1-7-1985 at that rate. Therefore these petitioners along with several others filed Writ Petitions Nos. 13061 to 13065 of 1985 and other connected Writ Petitions (Karnataka Excise Contractors Association (Regd) Bangalore v. The State of Karnataka) All those Writ Petitions were heard and decided on 2nd September 1987 in the following terms :'7. Whatever that may be, as far as these petitions are concerned, all that is necessary to say is that though undoubtedly the message (Annexure-D) issued by the Excise Commissioner directing the collection of excise duty at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-02-1988
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1394
ORDERBopanna, J. 1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common questions arise for consideration in all the petitions.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Cinema Theatre known as 'Sujatha Theatre' and he has challenged the correctness and the validity of the orders made by the Labour Court, Bangalore on certain applications made by the workmen employed by him under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the I.D.Act) and certain awards made by the very same Labour Court on references made by the State Government referring the disputes raised by his workmen touching the validity of the termination of their services. Though these petitions were filed in the year 1980, they were not disposed of even after a lapse of nearly 8 years on account of some confusion in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that these matters had been referred to a Division Bench. When these petitions were posted before the Division Bench, the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-02-1988
Reported in : [1989(59)FLR16]; 1989(1)KarLJ189; (1995)IIILLJ692Kant
P.P. Bopanna, J. 1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common question arises for consideration in all these petitions.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a cinema theatre known as 'Sujatha Theatre' and he has challenged the correctness and the validity of the orders made by the Labour Court, Bangalore, on certain applications made by the workmen employed by him under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and certain awards made by the very same Labour Court on references made by the State Government referring the disputes raised by his workmen touching the validity of the termination of their services. Though these petitions were filed in the year 1980, they were not disposed of even after a lapse of nearly eight years on account of some confusion in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that these matters had been referred to a Division Bench. When these petitions were posted before the Division Bench, the Division Bench af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-11-1988
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas440(Kar)
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These writ petitions were referred to a Division Bench by a learned single judge of this court. The petitions are filed by Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. (referred hereinafter as 'the petitioner') and one of its shareholders. The substance of the several reliefs sought is to restrain the enforcement of the revised rates of electricity tax with effect from August 18, 1991, and/or for a direction to the first respondent to reimburse to the petitioner the amounts paid which are in excess of the rate of 3% of the invoice amount s specified in clause 6(c) of the agreement between the parties. The other prayers are all incidental or ancillary to the basic relief sought by the petitioner. 2. The plea of the petitioner is as follows : In the year 1966, the Government of Mysore had undertaken the Sharavathi Valley Hydro Electric Project in the State and had plans for the construction of a hydro electric generating system to generate a large quantity of electric power. At...
Tag this Judgment!