Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-16-2005
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR777]; ILR2005KAR2701; 2005(5)KarLJ564
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. In these writ petitions, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has assailed the show cause notices and demand notices issued by the respondent-Labor Inspectors under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961 (for short 'Act of 1961) r/w the Karnataka Shops and Commercials Establishment Rules, 1963 (for short 'Rules of 1963) and the Karnataka Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965'). The parties being common and common questions of fact and that of law having arisen, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner having questioned the issue of show cause notices and demand notices calling upon it to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, has in addition sought for a declaration that it is exempt from the application of the provisions of the Act of 1965 and the Act of 1961.3. The claim of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-05-2005
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR625]; ILR2005KAR6024; 2005(6)KarLJ514; (2006)ILLJ975Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In these two writ petitions the same award is challenged by the petitioners to the extent they are aggrieved. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in W.P. No. 37333 of 2000.2. The petitioner was appointed as mechanic helper B on 25-11-1969 in the respondent-establishment. On 19-4-1986, while examining the vehicle, accidentally he fell down from the top of the vehicle as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The petitioner was a member of ESI Scheme and he was treated for a period of eleven months in the ESI hospital. He also took medical treatment as an outpatient at NIMHANS for a period of six months. On 15-5-1989, the petitioner reported for duty along with fitness certificate issued by a Competent Doctor on 4-5-1989. He was refused emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3710; 2005(4)KarLJ481
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These batches of writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural and/or converted lands, house sites, residential/farm houses, companies and builders and others questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of vast extent of lands for a development scheme called ARKAVATHI LAYOUT. The main features of the layout, as mentioned in the report of the Engineering Department of the BDA, are:(a) Total extent of land required : 2750 acres(b) Proposed residential sites : 28600(c) Civic Amenity sites : 50(d) Commercial sites : 150(e) Total estimation : Rs. 933.47 Crores(f) Total amount received : Rs. 981.36 Crores(g) Saving : Rs. 47.89 Crores(h) No. of villages covered : 16(i) No. of applicants : 2,32,000The details of various dimensions of the residential sites, the extent of land used for various purposes such as residential sites, park and play grounds, civic amenities, roads etc., the amount that would be realised from the sites, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-2005
Reported in : (2005)195CTR(Kar)149; [2005]274ITR459(KAR); [2005]274ITR459(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioners are all employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'the LIC') and are working as Development Officers in the various branches of the Corporation.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing of a circular Ref. Mktg./ZL/26/2004 dated April 24, 2004 (copy at annexure B to the petition), issued by the first respondent--the LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai, and for further directions to the Corporation and its branches not to deduct income-tax at source in respect of payment to the petitioners known as conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, particularly for the year 2004-2005 and for other consequential relief.3. These petitions are filed contending that the payment which the petitioners receive from the employer and which is known by the name conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, is exempted from income-tax under the provisions of Clause (14) of Section 10 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-2005
Reported in : AIR2005Kant351; 2005(4)KarLJ292
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Corporation registered under the laws in Russia and carrying on infrastructural construction activities. The first and second respondents floated a tender-national competitive bidding for rehabilitation of the State Highways. Petitioner submitted his bid on 9-4-2003 for execution of work of rehabilitation of road from Devi Nagar to Sindhanur falling within Bellary and Raichur Districts. On 30-5-2003 petitioner's bid was accepted and was awarded contract known as contract M-11 for a price of Rs. 20,54,73,806.41. The petitioner executed the necessary agreement and furnished Bank guarantees towards performance. Respondents called upon the petitioner to commence the work from 1st of August, 2003. The period of contract was 16 months from the date of commencement of the work.2. The case of the petitioner is after commencing the work they found that the entire road link was in a very bad condition and sought for review of the approvals. They contend a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-15-2005
Reported in : 2005(5)KarLJ575
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Writ Petition No. 35385 of 1997 filed by the appellant herein calling in question the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal, Karkala dated 3-10-1981 is dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present writ appeal by the aggrieved writ petitioner.2. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition be noted in the first instance in brief and they are as follows.--The appellant claiming to be the tenant of certain lands including the land admeasuring 71 cents comprised in Sy. No. 41/3 of Bola Village, Karkala Taluk (hereinafter shall be shortly referred to as 'scheduled land') filed Form 7 for declaration under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry, by its order dated 3-10-1981, granted occupancy rights of 86 cents of land in Sy. No. 41/2A, 1 acre 2 cents of land in Sy. No. 41/2C, 4 cents of land in Sy. No. 375/1 and 1 acre 69 cents of land in Sy. No. 375/2. It is q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-2005
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR170]; 2005(2)KarLJ47; (2005)IILLJ408Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner joined the services of the Central Bank of India ('Bank' for short) as a Clerk in the year 1966 and thereafter he was promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade, Scale I and designated as Sub-Accountant with effect from 31-8-1984. While he was working as Sub-Accountant at Bellary Branch of the Bank, he was kept under suspension by issuing a memo dated 17-8-1991 in contemplation of departmental enquiry proceedings for the alleged financial irregularities said to have been committed by him while working as Branch Manager at Pattadakal Branch of the respondent-Bank.2. The Disciplinary Authority of the Bank had issued a charge memo dated 18-4-1992, inter alia alleging two charges against the petitioner. The first charge is that while working as in-charge of bills purchase department of the Bank, petitioner had purchased on various dates cheques/withdrawals on various outstanding branches and had not ensured their realisations which were ultimately tu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-2005
Reported in : [2005]144TAXMAN572(Kar)
ORDERPetitioners are all employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'LIC') and are working as Development Officers in the various branches of the Corporation.2. In these petitions, petitioners'have sought for quashing of a circular Ref. Mktg./ZL/26/2004 dated 24-4-2004 (copy at Annexure-B to the petition) issued by the 1 st respondent-the LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai, and for further directions to the Corporation and its branches not to deduct income-tax at source in respect of payment to the petitioners' known as conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, particularly for the year 2004-05 and for other consequential relief.3. These petitions are filed contending that the payment which the petitioners receive from the employer and which is known by the name conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, is exempted from income-tax under the provisions of clause (14) of section 10 of the Act and to the knowledge and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)ARBLR254(Kar); 2005(2)CTLJ451(Kar); 2005(5)KarLJ112
..... v. export credit guarantee corporation of india limited, : (2004)3scc553 ;(c) life insurance corporation of india and anr. v. consumer education and research centre and ors., : air1995sc1811 ;(d) mysore construction company v. karnataka power corporation limited and ors., : ilr2000kar4953 ;(e) ..... and3. jayadeva institute of cardiology circle.the appellant-construction corporation, a public undertaking wholly owned by the government of uttar pradesh and incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, 1956, was set up in the year 1973 and since then, it ..... 226 of the constitution of india, specifically enforcing the contract of building, which is a contract, which cannot be specifically enforced under section 14 of the specific relief act.47. relying on the above said observations of the learned single judge, the learned senior counsel sri vijayashankar ..... entered into between the parties. therefore, the decision in the case of rukmanibai gupta, referred to by the learned senior counsel for the respondent-bda is not applicable to the case on hand, because, in the said decision, it has been held that arbitration agreement is not required to be in any particular form ..... by an experienced contractor, after due consultation with the employer and the contractor, determine any extension of time to which the contractor is entitled'.43. having regard to all the above clauses of the contract of agreement entered into between the parties, there is enough force in the submission .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3194; 2005(6)KarLJ410
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Dr. K.S. Sunitha is the petitioner in WP No. 14437/2005 and Dr. A. Padmaja is the petitioner in WP No. 14438/2005. Both the petitioners are holders of MBBS Degree and they were appointed as Medical Officers by an order dated 25.7.1997 issued by the Government of Karnataka pursuant to selection made by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. They had joined the services of the State on 13.8.1997 and 14.8.1997 respectively. The petitioners participated in the Post-Graduate Entrance Test 2005 held on 6.2.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha secured 139 marks in the Entrance Test out of 200 marks while Dr. A. Padmaja secured 118 marks out of 200. Both of them appeared for the counselling on 21.4.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha was allotted Post-Graduate seat in MS. OBG though she wanted a seat in MD. Radiology. Dr. A. Padmaja secured a seat for the study of MD. Anesthesiology though her first choice was MS. OBG2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-authorities have made...
Tag this Judgment!