Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR1341; (2002)IVLLJ370Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are inter-connected, inasmuch as they are concerned with the Standing Orders of the institutions which are common in nature and therefore they are dealt with under a common judgment.2. W.P. 20302/1991 is filed by the workmen of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as HAL in brevity) praying to quash the order dated August 5, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/5/6/85/LS-1 passed by the second respondent appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India.3. W.P. 12533/1992 is by the workmen of Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as ITI in brevity), wherein the prayer is to quash the order dated August 6, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/4/861LS-1 passed by the very same second appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner.4. W.P. 12787/1992 is filed by the Management of HAL seeking to quash the order of the same Joint Chief Labour Commissioner dated August 5, 1991 in No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ501; 2007(3)AIRKarR545(DB).; ILR2007(2)Kar2090
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These three writ appeals arise out of an order dated 28-5-1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 39909/1993. The petitioner one by name M.P. Jayashankar working as a Deputy Development Officer in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'] had preferred the writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the employer - Board in notifying the post of Development Officer - a promotional post to persons working in the cadre of Deputy Development Officers as a post to be filled up by promotion from among the eligible candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community as the post was being notified as a backlog vacancy and had eliminated opportunity to persons like the petitioner.2. The respondent No. 4 to the writ petition one T.R. Rangahanumaiah also working as a Deputy Development Officer in the organisation is a candidate belonging to scheduled caste community and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR633
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, the Act] and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have a common grievance and complaint against the validity of the penalty orders, which penalty has been imposed on the petitioners under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Such penalty is levied on the petitioners either for their failure to file returns of the turnover, which is a periodic return to be filed every month, in terms of Section 35 of the Act or for their failure to have paid the tax, which they have collected and which had become payable within the permitted time, as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act.3. Writ petitioners are complaining that the quantum of penalty levied on them under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, has assumed an oppress...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(3)KarLJ3612007(1)KCCR780; 2007(2)AIRKarR582(DB).
1. The appellants are the owners of a plot measuring 140 x 99 feet It is about 12 guntas in Sy. No. 14/1/2 of Lakmanahalli in Dharwad District. It is a remaining portion after the Government taken over the excess portion under the repealed Urban Land (Celling & Regulations) Act The said left-over land was acquired for Karnataka Housing Board for construction of houses. Preliminary Notification was dated 20-3-1989 and Final Notification was dated 18-11-1989. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 8-5-1992. Compensation awarded was Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the Appellants sought reference under Section 18(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act of 1961 (hereinafter called as 'L.A Act' in short) for higher compensation by determining the market value of the land. The reference Court passed a common judgment and award dated 28-1-2002 in L.A.C. Nos. 267 & 268/93 re-determining the market value at Rs. 2,80,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ316; ILR2007(2)Kar1362; 2007(2)KCCR1508; 2007(3)AIRKarR203
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that Section 34B of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development (Amendment) Act, 2000 as invalid and in violation of Article 19 & 21 ot the Constitution; that the termination of lease as per annexure S bearing No. IADB 3716 11118 2001-02 dated 2.1.2002 issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal; to declare the order of allotment dated 4.3.2002 issued by the 4th respondent at annexure Y as illegal and also to issue consequential direction to the respondents to restore the possession of the property to me petitioner by accepting the difference amount along with interest amounting to Rs. 6,52,696/- and for such other orders.2. Petitioner is said to be registered as a private limited company on 27.4.1982 for the purpose of manufacture of electronic battery powered two wheelers. Later the petitions is said to have converted into a public limited company recognised by the respondents as per annexure A. One Prabhakar who is a Dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(3)AIRKarR1; AIR2009NOC2187
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, the Act and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have a common grievance and complaint against the validity of the penalty orders, which penalty has been imposed on the petitioners under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Such penalty is levied on the petitioners either for their failure to file returns of the turnover, which is a periodic return to be filed every month, in terms of Section 35 of the Act or for their failure to have paid the tax, which they have collected and which had become payable within the permitted time, as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act.3. Writ petitioners are complaining that the quantum of penalty levied on them under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, has assumed an oppressi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3789; 1991(3)KarLJ609
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium metal and has a smeltor complex at Belgaum, It is alleged that in response to 'An Invitation to Investors in Industry' published by the Government of Karnataka in 1966, the petitioners set up a smeltor complex and an aluminium plant at Belgaum on the basis of the assurances given by the State Government in the said brochure. An agreement was entered into between the 1st petitioner, the State Government and the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 26-3-1966 for supply of electric power at a fixed rate for the duration of the agreement. In the said agreement provision was made for supply of power at a fixed rate with electricity tax at stipulated rate for a period of 25 years with an option for renewal for a further period of 25 years. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, it is claimed by the 1st petitioner, that it set up the complex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR1591; 2007(3)KLJ544; 2007(3)KCCRSN152; 2007(3)AIRKarR368
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The brief facts leading to this petition are that, in order to comply with the requirement of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner filed necessary serial application in SA No. 1/1999 before the Labour Court, Hubli seeking approval of the dismissal of the respondent by order dated 12.1.1999. During the pendency of the same, the respondent chose to raise a dispute regarding dismissal by filing a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Act in KID No. 52/1989 before the same Court Both the matters were proceeding simultaneously until the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Act in SA No. 1/1999 indicating that in view of the workman challenging the order of dismissal by raising a dispute, the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act has become infructuous. The petitioner filed objections to the same. The Labour Court after considering the matter by its orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ11
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The contentions of the parties in nutshell are as under:2. The writ petitioner claims to be the legal representative of original owner Mr. Munivenkatappa (her father-in-law). The present Writ Petition is filed by her, being aggrieved by the notification dated 22.3.2005 at Annexure - K made by the 1st respondent State in No. Na.Aa.Ee.30 Bim. Bhu.Swa.2004.Father-in-law of the present petitioner was the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 50, 51 & 52 totally measuring 21 acres and 39 guntas situate at Tavarakere village of Begur Hobli. In this Writ Petition only survey number 50 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas is the subject matter (hereinafter referred to as 'the land'). Petitioner is the wife of one of the sons of Munivenkatappa by name Bheemananna @ Subbanna who died on 24.1.2005.The State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power proceeded to acquire the land in question along with other lands for a public purpose, i.e. formation of Byrasandra Tavarakere Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1985Kant186; 1985(1)KarLJ407
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the petitioners in these cases have challenged two amending Acts to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957) ('the Act') on grounds that are common or inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We, therefore, propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. On the outskirts of the City of Bangalore there are 4 giant industrial undertakings of the Central Government called (i) Indian Telephone Industries Limited, ('ITI'); (ii) Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, ('HAL'); (iii) Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, ('HMT') and (iv) Bharat Electronics Limited ('BEL') employing thousands of persons who have their residences in different parts of the City. In order to provide assured transportation facilities to their employees from their residential houses to their factories and vice versa, these undertakings have maintained their own fleet of passenger buses. The undertakings collect a nominal amount from each empl...
Tag this Judgment!