Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-19-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2922; [1998]229ITR71(KAR); [1998]229ITR71(Karn)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The assessee is a Development Officer employed with the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). During the previous year pertaining to the asst. yr. 1983-84, he, apart from his other emoluments, had received a sum of Rs. 40,094 as incentive commission from the Corporation. At the time of assessment, he claimed 40 per cent. thereof, being Rs. 16,038, as permissible deduction. But the same was disallowed by the ITO on the ground that since incentive commission received by the assessee not being an income derived either from business or profession, no deduction, as claimed, is permissible therefrom. Accordingly, he added the incentive commission to his salary income and allowed only the standard deduction as contemplated under S. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961 (In short, 'Act'). 2. Against the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC and succeeded in getting deduction of 40 per cent. as claimed. Aggrieved by the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-08-1997
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ572
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1996, hereinafter called the 'Act', has been challenged in this public interest litigation on the grounds that the impugned legislation is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act is alleged to have been passed with an object to render ineffective all binding judicial pronouncements between the parties which is not only unwarranted, but also unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is intended to authorise the judicially determined illegal constructions and thus affect the supremacy of Rule of Law. The Act is stated to have the effect of undoing the undertakings given by the parties to this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is contended to have the effect of setting aside the adjudication of the disputes betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-13-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2078
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. By these petitions the petitioners are seeking for quashing the Notifications at Annexure-A dated 9th August, 1995 and Annexure-B dated 20th October, 1995. They are issued by virtue of the powers under Sections 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short the Act).2. Annexure-A proposes to specify certain areas to be smaller urban area of Bidar and the same shall be a City Municipal area of Bidar and calls upon those interested to fife objections to the proposal, it also describes the said smaller urban area as areas coming within the limits specified in Schedule-B to the Notification.3. By Annexure-B the Government of Karnataka specified the smaller urban area stating that objections have been invited by Notification dated 16.8,1995, and objections received in time have been duly examined. It is stated in the Notification that having regard to :(i) the population of such area is not less than fifty thousand and not exceeding three lakhs; (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-20-1997
Reported in : ILR1998KAR27
1. Respondents 1 to 8 filed writ petitions before this Court claiming that they are employed in the Karnataka Electricity Board canteen run by the appellant for the benefit of their employees working in Cauvery Bhavan and other Officers of the Board. It is alleged that the canteen caters to the needs of about 800 employees working in the said premises of the Karnataka Electricity Board; that they are paid very low wages; that they are not paid on par with the other employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board in the matter of emoluments; that the petitions were filed seeking a direction to the respondents to treat respondents 1 to 8 herein as regular employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board, entitled to conditions of service similar to the permanent comparable employees or workmen of the Karnataka Electricity Board; that the canteen is run by Respondent 9 consisting of Officers and Employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board; that the Managing Committee though constituted is run u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-1997
Reported in : I(1999)ACC248; 1998ACJ1204; 1998(6)KarLJ707
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 27-10-1992 delivered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore, Sub-Division II, in case No. 16 of 1989 against Kaveri v G. Markanda Naidu, whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,200/- as the lump sum compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Sri Kaveri, present appellant was working as a labourer in crushing stones in Rajeshwari Granites. According to the claimant, the claimant, in the application originally made stated, that he was getting monthly wages to the tune of Rs. 300/-per month. It may be mentioned here that the admitted position between the parties is that at a later stage an application was made for amendment amending the claim petition and by substituting the figure of Rs. 600/- per month as salary instead of Rs. 300/- as mentioned originally in the claim petition. In other words ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-29-1997
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ574
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Under the industrial jurisprudence, bonus connotes claim of the workmen due to them beyond strict wages. Any extra consideration given for what is received, or something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by, or strictly due to the recipient is a bonus. It is also termed as wage incentives given to the labourer by the establishment for achieving higher productivity. The object of grant of bonus on the one hand is to increase earnings of the workers and on the other to improve the efficiency in the output in an industrial establishment. The Payment of Bonus Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') was enacted to provide for payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments on the basis of profits or on the basis of production or productivity and for matters connected therewith. In the statement of objects and reasons to Act No. 21 of 1965, it was stated: 'A Tripartite Commission was set up by the Government of India by their Resolution No. WB-20(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1433
G. Patribasavana Goud, J.1. In WP. No. 1888 of 1997 filed by the Employees Union of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., and in the connected Writ Petitions filed by others under Article 226 of the Constitution, constitutional validity of Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) as amended by Act 29 of 1989, and the validity of Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('Rules' for short), together with Rules 51 and 54 thereof, as amended by the Employees' State Insurance (Central)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 under Notification dated 23.12.1996, are questioned.2. While issuing Rule Nisi and passing a conditional order of stay, Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 4.2.1997, referred the said Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1997 and the connected Writ Petitions to the Division Bench. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has also preferred Writ Appeal No. 1436 of 1997 as against the said conditiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-26-1997
Reported in : I(1998)ACC689; 1999ACJ344; [1998(79)FLR716]; ILR1997KAR2376
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The following questions are referred by a Division Bench of this Court for consideration:-(1) Whether the family pension is liable to be deducted out of the compensation determined in the case? (2) Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in N. SIVAMMAL AND OTHERS vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, AIR 1985 SC 106 the view taken by this Court in SMT. SHANTHA @ SHANTABAI ANNAPPA GADIVADDAR AND OTHERS vs. CHANNABASAPPA DYAMAPPA GADADAVAR AND ANOTHER M.F.A.No. 457/1993 : 1993 ACJ 850 is correct? 2. The facts leading to the reference are:2.1. In regard to the death of one Basavaraj in a motor accident on the midnight of 8/9.4.1983, his wife and children filed a claim petition. The Tribunal found that the deceased was an employee of Karnataka Electricity Board getting a salary of Rs. 1,300/-. The Tribunal determined the loss of dependency to the family as Rs. 900/ per month. Due to his death, his wife is getting family pens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-1997
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ628
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Denial of pensionary benefits under the Regulations framed by the appellant-Banks in the year 1995 to the respondent-employees who had voluntarily retired from service between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993, under the then prevalent Voluntary Retirement Scheme, brought them to the Court for the grant of appropriate relief. The respondent-employees prayed for quashing of Regulation 29 which allegedly deprived them the benefit of the Pension Scheme. It was submitted that the cut-off date prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations was arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India. They prayed that a declaration be issued holding them entitled to the grant of pension on voluntary retirement under the Regulations of 1995. It was submitted that a command be issued to the appellant-Banks to grant commutation amount of pension and to pay the same w.e.f. 1st November, 1993 with all consequential benefits inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-09-1997
Reported in : ILR1998KAR730; 1998(5)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Alleging corruption, favouritism, nepotism and mala fides against respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner herein has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ or direction striking down the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1997 as being illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction to the respondent-State to enforce the 1989 amendment rules. It is further prayed that a direction be issued for appointing an authority such as C.B.I., to probe in detail to find out the total loss caused to the respondent-State by way of evasion of payment of excise duties, cesses, sales tax on the sale of 'seconds' in IMFL which were allegedly sold without payment of excise duty cesses and sales tax during the period from December 1985 when the Supreme Court is stated to have affirmed the 1989 Amended Rules, till date by non-implementation of the 1989 Rules. It is contended that the difference be directed to be recovered personally from respondents 3 and 4.T...
Tag this Judgment!