Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1712; 2004(4)KarLJ77
ORDERBhakthavatsala, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged order and decree dated 15.10.2003 of Election Tribunal passed in E.P. No. 1/2002 (Annexure-C and D) on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kunigal.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Sri H.B. Narayan, learned Government Pleader. Respondent No. 3 is represented by Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy.3. Heard arguments for final disposal.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under:-The respondent No. 3 (election Petitioner) herein filed Election Petition No. 1/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kunigal, contending that after first term of Office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha came to an end, the 1st Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26-11-2002, appointed the 2nd Respondent as Prescribed Officer to hold election for the Office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Nademavinapura Grama Panchayat. The Prescribed Officer fixed election on 9.12.2002, but the elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006]144STC446(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), engaged in the business of sale of LPG (liquid petroleum gas).2. The appellant purchases LPG in bulk from M/s. Reliance Industries Limited and fills it in small cylinders of different capacities and sells such gas in cylinders. It is stated that transferring gas from a bulk container into small cylinders is a complicated process involving use of compressors, evacuating systems, filling guns, etc. It is alleged that without the use of such machinery/equipment, it will not be possible to transfer gas which is received by it in bulk to small cylinders. It is submitted that machinery that are used by the appellant for this purpose fall under Entry 1(iii)(a) of Part M of the Second Schedule to the Act.3. The Government of Karnataka, by notification dated March 31, 2000 issued under Section 8A of the Act reduced the tax payable by a dealer under Section 5 of the Act in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ73
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing no confidence motion notice dated 5-2-2004 bearing No. Chunavane: CR-13/03-04:7120 on the file of respondent 2.2. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Sri H.B. Narayan, learned Government Pleader.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under.--The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Grama Panchayat on 29-2-2000. He was elected as Adhyaksha of respondent 3-Grama Panchayat on 24-12-2000. It is alleged that rival members of the Grama Panchayat made a joint complaint to the respondent 2 on 27-1-2004 for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner. The impugned notice dated 5-2-2004 was served on the petitioner on 7-2-2004. The petitioner has contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed on the following grounds.--(a) that the representation or requisition submitted to the respondent 2 is not in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(6)BomCR427; 2004(4)MhLj196
A.S. Oka, J.1. On 3rd March, 2004 this petition was finally heard and was adjourned for dictation of the Judgment. The petitioner has taken exception to the Judgment and Order dated 9th December, 2003, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Akola. By the said Judgment, Revision application filed by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed. The petitioner had filed a Complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1971) against the respondent No. 1 in the Court of the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Akola. By the Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 2002 the learned Judge of the Labour Court held that inquiry against the petitioner was not fair, legal and proper. The learned Judge held that the respondent No. 1 was guilty of committing unfair labour practice and therefore, relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with backwages was granted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2006ACJ994
C.M.A. 420 of 1997:S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is appellant herein. Appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.10.1995 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai for a sum of Rs. 95,000.2. The accident took place at 5 a.m. on, 19.2.1988 in the main road between Karur and Trichy and near Mayanoor Kasa Colony when the lorry bearing registration No. TDC 4321, which was rashly and negligently driven by Rajendran, respondent No. 10 herein and it hit against the tamarind tree on the left side of the road. In the said accident one Noor Mohamad who was seated beside the driver sustained injuries and later on succumbed to the same.3. Respondent No. 11 herein, Vijayalakshmi, is the owner of the lorry. The appellant herein is the insurer of the said lorry. The widow, six children and parents are claimants. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 and what was awarded is Rs. 95,000.4. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004AP400; 2004(3)ALD1; 2004(3)ALT682
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the notice-dated 28.8.2003 issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Peddapalli to the petitioner who is the elected President of Mandal Parishad, Sreerampur Mandal, Karimnagar District, intimating her that the meeting of the Mandal Parishad will be convened on 15.9.2003 at 11.00 a.m for considering the Motion of No-confidence moved against her.2. At the time of hearing before the learned Single Judge, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 1755 and 1579 of 2003 (B. Ananda Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer. Jagtial) dated 16.10.2003 wherein, interpreting Rule 3 of the Rules relating to Motion of No-Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/President of Mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad as notified in G.O. Ms. No. 200 P.R.&R.D.; (Mandal-I) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') dated 28,4.1998, it was held that serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(4)SC158; (2004)3MLJ132(SC); 2004(4)SCALE192; (2004)4SCC460; 2004(2)LC1300(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J. INTRODUCTION:1. Validity of sale deed dated 19.6.1985 executed by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') in favour of the appellant herein was questioned by the first respondent before the High Court by way of a public interest litigation which has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.FACTUAL BACKGROUND:2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals. For grant of allotment of a suitable plot for establishing an industry, an application was filed by it before the said Authority and upon consideration thereof, a plot admeasuring 1 acre 20 guntas under the (BTM) was allotted on a consideration of Rs. 1,87,500/-. On the said amount having been deposited by the appellant, a deed of sale was executed in its favour by the authority on or about 29.6.1995. The appellant was also put in possession thereof. A licence for fencing the property was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)2GLR568; (2004)IIILLJ259Guj
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These four petitions raising the following questions referred by two learned Single Judges are listed before us alongwith other cognate matters which are tagged with them.Questions Referred:2. In Special Civil Applications No.4715 of 2003 and 4435 of 2001, the learned Single Judge, (H.K. Rathod, J.), by his order dated 4-12-2003, formulated six questions for referring them to the Larger Bench in the following terms;'(1) Whether the Forest Department and the Irrigation Department of the State can be said to be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not ?(2) What is the correct law between the two different views/ratios laid down by two different Division Bench of this Court in case of PWD EMPLOYEES UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 1987[2] GLR 1070 wherein the Irrigation Department of the State is held to be an industry for the purpose of I.D. Act and decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of SHANKERJI CHELAJI T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2234
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.1. In these bunch of writ petitions, the notifications issued by the State Government on 13th January, 2004 in the exercise of power under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 21 of U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, are under challenge. By these notifications, nine districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, namely : Hathras, Gautam Budh Nagar, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Sant Kabir Nagar, Auraiya, Chandauli, Kaushambi, Shrawasti and four Commissioner's Division, namely, Basti, Devipatan, Mirzapur, Saharanpur have been abolished. Since the language of all these notifications are practically similar, we feel it necessary to reproduce one of such notifications, which runs as under :NOTIFICATION'In exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act No. III of 1901) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. I of 1904) and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2888; 2004(4)KarLJ444
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have assailed the correctness of the order dated 13.1,1992 on the file of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. AR/8/DLS/47/91-92 ordering for attaching the property owned by them bearing Survey No. 123/2 measuring 10 acres 3 guntas (total) situated at Neerbudihal Village, Badami Taluk, Bijapur District as being arbitrary, erroneous, illegal, contrary to law, equity and justice (Annexure-M). Further, they sought quashing of the order dated 7.3.1996 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bijapur in Proceedings No. DRT/APPEAL/33/92-93 confirming the order dated 13.1.1992 passed by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, erroneous, illegal, contrary to law, equity and justice (Annexure-R).2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, as per the agreement dated 15.7.1988, they have purchased the land bearing Survey No. 123/2 (totally measuring 10 acres 3 guntas) to an extent of 5 acres 1 1/2 guntas each s...
Tag this Judgment!