Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR4003; 2008(6)AIRKarR319; AIR2009NOC264
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 6th January, 1995 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hubli in OS No. 55 of 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It entered into an agreement of sale with the appellants on 7th March, 1986 in respect of the lands measuring 22 acres out of 27 acres 5 guntas (18 acres 18 guntas at R.S. No. 7, 4 acres 37 guntas at R.S. No. 5A/3B/1, and 3 acres 30 guntas in R.S. No. 5A/3B/2 of Bammapura Village, Hubli Taluk). These lands, constituting the subject matter of the same, are hereinafter called as 'suit property'. The sale consideration agreed upon was Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) per acre.3. The said agreement stipulated that the first respondent Society should obtain necessary clearance and approvals from the State Government at its cost. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ11; 2009(2)KCCR1187; 2009(3)AIRKarR359(D.B)
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Since the above two appeals arise from the same set of facts arid against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 5205/2006 & 1250/2007 dated 02.07.2007 the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. We heard Sri. P.S. Manjunath, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, Sri. Ganapathi Section Shastry, Advocate appearing for contesting respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 1996/2007 and Suit. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the District Registrar of Societies & Firms and perused the material on record.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Questioning the legality and correctness of the amendment brought into the bye-laws of The Hebar Sree Vaishnava Sabha ('Sabha' for short) in the General Body Meeting held on 31.07.2005, the contesting respondents> claiming to be the members of the 'Sabha' filed two writ, petitions inter alia contending that the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1979(38)FLR158]; (1979)ILLJ192Kant
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute. Bangalore, the petitioner, is questioning the legality of the registration of their employees' association as a trade union under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, on the grounds that the institute is purely a research and development organisation without any profit motive and therefore, even if it can be regarded as 'industry' within the meaning of that word as defined in the , it is not a trade or industry for purposes of Trade Unions Act and consequently the registration of the association of the employees of the institute under the Trade Unions Act by the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions is without authority of law. 2. Case of the petitioner : The petitioner is this writ petition is the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute situate in Bangalore. It is society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to the objects set ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant50; ILR2005KAR1278; 2005(1)KarLJ118
N. Kumar, J.1. These appeals are placed before me for my opinion, pursuant to an order dated 13-8-2004 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, consequent to divergence of opinion between the two learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench. As the learned Judges did not state the point upon which they differed, it is necessary for me to ascertain the same before I give my opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited v. Union of India and Ors., : AIR1996All135 .2. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The first appellant is the medical college and the second appellant is its Principal. First appellant-institution is established by the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The first appellant-college was established in the year 1980 by the trust known as Ananda Social and Educational Trust. First appellant-college was maintained and administered by the Board of Trustees and the Governing Counci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR3446; 1982(2)KarLJ453
Ramachandriah, J. 1. These three appeals are filed by defendants-3, 1 and 2 respectively in O.S. 10600/1989 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore City, against the Judgment and decree dated 19-4-1990 decreeing the suit declaring that the plaintiff's nomination paper to the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. for the election of the office of Stewards held on 27-9-1989 had been improperly rejected by the Management of the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., although his nomination was valid and proper; directing the club to accept the nomination paper of the plaintiff for the post of Stewards and to conduct fresh election in respect of the same by issuing fresh calendar of events and further declaring that the election of defendants-2 to 4 as Stewards for a period of two years from 27-9-1989 in the election held on that date is illegal and unsustainable in law and consequently, restraining defendants-2 to 4 by means of a perpetual injunction from acting, functioning or pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1983)IILLJ330Kant
ORDER1. In this batch of eight writ petitions filed by ex-Railway servants questioning the legality of the orders by which penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against them, after dispensing with the enquiry, in exercise of the powers under R. 14(ii) of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with clause (b) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution, the following important questions of law arise for consideration : (i) Whether after dispensing with the disciplinary enquiry against a civil servant, on the ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry, in exercise of the powers under Clause (b) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution and R. 14(ii) of the Rules, an opportunity should be given by the concerned disciplinary authority to the concerned civil servant to make representation against the imposition of penalty (ii) Whether the reasons in sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR186
ORDERShivappa, J. 1. These three Petitions are filed by M/S.Asian Wire Ropes Ltd., represented by Sri M.Janakiram. All these cases are clubbed and heard together and a common Order is passed. 2. The facts of the case in all the three Petitions and the offences alleged against the petitioner are stated hereunder: In Cr.P, 1440/92, the petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR in Crime No. RC. 19(A)/90 registered on 29.6.1990 under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 420 and 471 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the P.C.Act). In Cr.P. 1441/90, the petitioner is seeking for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 20(A)/90 registered on 29.6.1990 under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C.Act. In Cr.P. 1442/90 the petitioner is seeking for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 21(A)/90 registered on 29.6.1990 under Section 120-B IPC r/w. Sections 42...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant323; AIR1966Mys323; (1966)1MysLJ21
Chandrashekar, J.1. In the Writ Petition out of which this reference to the Full Bench has arisen, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Revenue Authorities directing him to pay additional stamp duty and penalty on an instrument executed in his favour. The Division Bench before which the Writ Petition camp up for hearing has referred to the Full Bench, the following question:--'Whether the deed in question is a release deed falling within Article 44 of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, or whether it is a conveyance falling under Article 19 of that Act.'(2) The necessary implication of this question, I think is whether the instrument is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 44 of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, or under Article 19 of that Act.(3) The instrument in question is styled as a deed of release and was executed on 12-3-1962 the instrument as the first party and M.A. Venkatachalapthy, referred to as the second party who is the petitioner in this Writ Petition.(4) The preamble po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1984KAR778
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these three Writ Petitions presented against the Orders of the State Government refusing to refer the dispute relating to dismissal from service of each of the petitioners by the concerned management, for industrial adjudication, the following important question of law arises forconsideration :Whether the decision of the Government not to refer a dispute between a workman of an industry and its management jo respect of imposition of penalty of dismissal or removal from service of the workman, on the ground that approval had been accorded to the order of dismissal by an order made by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is valid ?2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :-(i) W. P. No. 17184/80 : The Petitioners in this Writ Petition are the Mysore Lamp Works represented by the President of the Mysore Lamp Works Employees Association. One Shankar was an employee of the Mysore Lamp Works Limited. A disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1968]68ITR35(KAR); [1968]68ITR35(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923, and relates to the assessment for the income-tax year 1949-50 of a Hindu undivided family, of which one R. Hanumanthappa was the karta and his son, Ramasetty, and grandson, Sreenivasa Murthy, were the other members. The account year of the assessee was Deepavali to Deepavali and the period relevant for assessment was November 30, 1947, to November 1, 1948. 2. The assessment in the normal course was completed on December 29, 1949. But some years later, the assessment was sought to be reopened under section 34 of the Act. At that stage, the assessee claimed exemption under sub-section (3) of section 25 of the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923. The facts on the basis of which the claim was made briefly the following : 3. On 2nd November, 1948, the family entered into a regular partition of all its properties and assets. One of the assets was a flourishing business which was till then being carried on ...
Tag this Judgment!