Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(3)KarLJ521a
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 20-9-2004 passed in reference No. 185 of 2002 in the matter of appearance under Section 36(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of medical transcription. Respondent in the light of his termination from the petitioner-company raised a dispute in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Matter was referred to the Labour Court. One Mr. Hansi filed authorisation on 16-5-2004 in his capacity as an Executive Committee Member of the Indian Employers Federation to represent on behalf of the petitioner-company. The same was objected to by the respondent. Matter was heard. After hearing, the Court has chosen to reject the appearance of Mr. Hansi in the matter. This order is challenged in this petition.2-A. Contesting respondent has entered appearance through caveat. He opposes the petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2864; 2004(5)KarLJ120
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The legislative action is one of the techniques in the democratic polity to solve the social problems in a legal manner to avoid social frictions and to prevent unlawful methods to vindicate one's right. The Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 is one such legislation in the direction. The dispute resolution procedural law in civil jurisprudence broadly Category different jurisdictions like matrimonial, probate, insolvency, and Civil Court jurisdiction, etc. In the category of the Civil Court jurisdiction there is further classification of Civil Court and Small Cause Court, The wholesome object of creating Small Cause Court is to provide expeditious trial and disposal of certain type of cases in the shortest possible time. The instant case provides a queer situation of a provision in the Small Cause Courts Act working against and subverting the object of Small Cause jurisdiction.2. In this case the appellant is the tenant of a non-residential premises on the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1038
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. This is a reference made Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned Sessions Judge of Chitradurga, recommending to this Court, the order of costs of Rs. 50/- directed to be paid by the complainant to the accused in C. C. No. 1290 of 1968, be set aside.2. The complainant, who is respondent No. 1 before this Court, filed a complaint against the two accused-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for an offence Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code before the First Class Magistrate, Chitradurga. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant Paravathamma. Thereafter, he also recorded the statement of two of her witnesses and took the case on file and issued summons to the two accused for an offence Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, of the case, the Magistrate acquitted both the accused, but acting Under Section 516-AA of the amended Criminal P.C. (Mysore) asked the complainant to show cause why she sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ560Kant
ORDER1. Petitioner, Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dharwad, in this petition filed under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has called in attention the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, dated April 30, 1987 (Annexure-P) and July 17, 1987 (Annexure-A) in Serial Application Nos. 10 and 11/86, holding that the domestic enquiry held against the respondents is not legal and fair and rejecting-their applications seeking approval of order of dismissal of the respondents dated September 22, 1986 under See. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Brief facts are, Respondentsand-1 and 2 were working under the petitioner-Bank as Junior Bank Inspector and Assistant Manager respectively and they were deputed to work in the Taluk Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Society (TAPCMS) with effect from February 1, 1973 and March 24, 1973 respectively. It is stated in the petition that during their services under the establishment of TAPCMS, respondents were involved i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant307; ILR2005KAR2559; 2005(4)KarLJ5
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. These writ appeals are against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-9-2004 dismissing W.P: 22715/01 and connected matters.2. Appellants are the Co-operative Societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellants-societies are engaged in different activities like, banking, marketing spinning etc. The Director of Co-operative Audit by his notification dated 17-2-2001 bearing No. CMW. 823.CLM.96, increased the audit fee from 15 paise to 20 paise for every Rs. 100/- on the working capital or business turn over of the Societies. Pursuant to this notification, the audit of some of the societies was conducted and demand notices were issued. The appellants-societies being aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 17-2-2001 and the demand notices have questioned the same before this Court by filing writ petitions. The main contention of the appellant-societies before the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR957; 1987(1)KarLJ164
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is an unusual revision by the plaintiff against the decree dated 24-7-85 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S. 1891/80 decreeing the suit against defendants 1 to 5 only.2. There was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff executed by defendant No. 1 and others. In pursuance of that agreement, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 47,000/- as advance. Later on disputes appear to have arisen between the parties. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 47,000/- which he had given as advance to defendant No. 1 and others under the said agreement of sale.3. Defendants resisted the suit.4. In the meanwhile plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking an amendment of the plaint and thereby praying for the relief of specific performance. It was rejected by the trial Court. His revision to this Court failed. Thereafter, he filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking a further amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]262ITR135(KAR); [2003]262ITR135(Karn)
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge of this court, dated January 22, 1999, in Writ Petition No. 43139 of 1993 has preferred this writ appeal.2. The facts in brief are :3. The appellant who claims to be a civil contractor declared a total income of Rs. 86,810 in his return of income filed on February 6, 1992, for the assessment year 1991-92. The return was accompanied by a profit and loss account, balance-sheet, statement of tax deducted at source, etc. The assessing authority in intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), computed the total income of the appellant-assesses at Rs. 5,21,760, as, while processing the return, he found that the assessee had short-totaled the gross bills received from the Karnataka Housing Board (K. H. B). Consequently, the assessing authority added the difference (Rs. 27,55,383 minus 23,20,428) of Rs. 4,34,955 to the income declared by the appellant.4. Aggrieved...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1504; 1993(2)KarLJ47
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought for quashing of the order dated 23.11.1992 passed in K.D.R.RA.2/89-90 by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum.1. Before adverting to the contentions advanced, reference to previous proceedings pending between the parties on record would throw much light to decide the issues involved. One Bhima son of Rama Hiralkodi on 30.4.1975 had mortgaged an extent of 2 acres and 10 guntas comprised in Sy.No.458 situate in Kanagala Village in favour of one Shankar son of Jotiba Kire Kodi for a sum of Rs. 8,500/- and in pursuance of the same possession of the lands in question was delivered to Shankar. Subsequently, Bhima filed an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Debtors Relief Act, 1976 seeking relief from indebtedness, proceeding being numbered as KDR/HKP. 445 dated 25.11.1976, the Taluka Magistrate passed the order, the operative portion being:-'At the outset, it is admitted by the petitioner himself that he owns 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1564; 1994(3)KarLJ360
N.D.V. Bhat, J1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.2,1993 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.As. III and V in O.S.No. 6342/1992. By the said order, the lower Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff at I.A.III and I.A.V filed by the proposed defendant-2 was allowed. The lower Court vacated the temporary injunction granted earlier by the same order.2. Since Dr. Shivaiah and Sri Vishwanatha Shetty submitted to the Court that the matter be disposed of on merits, the matter has been taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.3. I have heard Dr. Shivaiah in person and Sri Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.4. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are as under:Karnataka State T.B.Association, Bangalore, is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The Society for the purpose of carrying out its affairs, is governed by its Rules a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ426
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These petitions are filed seeking for a writ of quo warranto and for various prayers.2. The petitioners state that the 3rd respondent is a Statutory Board constituted for the State of Karnataka in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The State Board is governed by Section 4(2) of the Act. Clause (f) of Section 4(2) empowers the State Government to appoint the Member-Secretary. The 3rd respondent is required to perform its duties in terms of the Act with regard to pollution. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has issued a notification bearing No. Apajee 23 EPC 2004, dated 23-2-2004 appointing the 4th respondent as the Member-Secretary of the 3rd respondent-Board with immediate effect. Annexure-A is the notification. The petitioners state that the 4th respondent is an IAS Officer. She has held different posts in various Governmental Departments and under Local Authorities, The 4th respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!