Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-23-2009
..... in : air 1977 sc 36. on the same principle in the case of life insurance corporation v. d.t. bahadur reported in : air 1980 sc 2181 wherein it was held by the supreme court that the industrial disputes act, 1947 has been held to be a special statute in matters of settlement of industrial disputes and the bonus payable to workmen under a settlement cannot be affected by a regulation made under section 49 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956, which is a statute applying generally. so also it has ..... a particular special law deals only with the particular phase of the subject covered by the general law and therefore, reconciliation is normally possible between a prior particular act and a later general act and so the particular act is construed as an exception or qualification of the general act. the supreme court has also held that a law applicable to a locality or to a class of cases or individuals is a special law as distinguished from a general law, which applies to the whole community. a law which is essentially general in ..... basis of which the second respondent was satisfied, that it is necessary to bring the impugned order dated 19.5.2009 into force at once.43. from the material on record what is apparent is subsequent to the meeting held in january 2008 there was no general order passed invoking section 31 of the karnataka police act, thereafter from the letter dated 21.5.2009 it is known that the meeting was held on 19.5.2009 under the chairmanship of the home .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-16-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Kant168; ILR2009KAR3123; 2009(4)KarLJ349::2009(2)KCCR1588:2009(5)AIRKarR76
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of in view of the urgency in the matter.2. Petitioner in this petition has sought for a declaration to declare that the staff in private sector Bank like the petitioner are outside the purview of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Further, petitioner has sought for quashing the notice dated 13th March, 2009, issued by the Tahsildar, Mangalore produced at Annexure-Al, notice dated 12th March, 2009, issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk produced as Annexure-A2, and the notice dated 31st January, 2009, issued by the Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk produced as Annexure-A3 and all farther proceedings pursuant to the same.3. Petitioner in this petition is a Banking Company, incorporated under Companies Act, 1913 and carrying on its Banking activities throughout the country and is not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-02-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)KarLJ295
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. No. 15158 of 2007, dated 6-3-2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is called in question in this appeal by the State and the Forest Department.2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:Forest Department conducted an auction of timber lots by notification dated 24-4-2007. Respondent participated in the tender and he became successful bidder in respect of 16 lots stated in para 1 of the writ petition. Subsequently, by an order dated 20-3-2007, the bid was confirmed in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner. Writ petitioner also participated in an auction conducted pursuant to another notification and purchased 5 lots, as stated in para 2 of the writ petition and the auction made by the respondent in respect of those 5 lots was also confirmed vide order dated 18-4-2007. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, respondent-writ petitioner was granted two months time to pay the sale price a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-18-2009
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 18.6.2009 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, D.K., Mangalore in M.A. No. 9/2008 and the order, dated 14.9.2007 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore on I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 40/1996.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed the suit for partition, separate possession, etc. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1, Shantharama Pergade died on 10.5.2000. The petitioners filed two I.As. - I.A. No. 6 for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 and I.A. No. 7 for setting aside the abatement. The said I.A.s were rejected by the Trial Court, by its common order, dated 14.9.2007.3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred M.A. No. 9/2008. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed the said appeal by confirming the orders of the Trial Court. On suffering the concurrent orders, this petition is presented.4. Sri S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-24-2009
Reported in : 2009(4)KantLJ711(DB),2009(3)KCCR2090(DB),ILR2009KAR2339; 2009(4)KarLJ711
These two writ appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12727 of 2004, dated 23-6-2007 and 3-8-2007 wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the communication dated 14-10-2003 and has directed the respondent-M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited to supply the balance quantity of Iron Ore Fines at the rate which was prevailing as on the date of filing the writ petition and has further directed the writ petitioner to pay interest on Rs. 40 lakhs at the rate of 6% p.a. from 14-10-2003 till the date of payment and has ordered that revised rate hall not carry any interest.2.1 The material facts of the case leading upto these appeals with reference to the rank of the parties in the writ petition are as follows:2.2 W.P.No.12727 of 2004 was filed seeking for quashing of the communication dated 14-10-2003 issued by the respondent in the writ petition and for directing the respondent to honour its commitment under the letter of intent-A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-20-2009
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner-Employees Provident Fund Organisation constituted under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act'), aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2009 in A.T.A. No. 663 (6) 2003 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Annexure-'B', has preferred this petition.2. The 1st respondent an establishment falling within the definition of the said term under the 'Act', was required to deposit the Provident Fund contributions under Section 6 of the Act read with Paragraph 38 of Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, for short 'EPF Scheme 1952'; Pension Fund contributions under Section 6A of the Act read with Paragraph 3 of the EPF Scheme, 1952; Administrative charges under Paragraph 38 of EPF Scheme 1952; Inspection charges under Section 17(3) of the Act read with Paragraphs 27 and 27A of the EPF Scheme, 1952; Employees Deposit linked Insurance Fund contribution and administrative charges under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-24-2009
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2553; 2009(5)KarLJ412
1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein who has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.04.2005 made in W.P. No. 15212/2004 refusing to grant issue of mandamus directing the respondents to supply 20000 PDMT iron ore fines of +65% from Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines at Rs. 175/- per PDMT pursuant to the letter of allotment dated 17.11.2003.2. The appellant-writ: petitioner, in the writ petition sought to quash the order dated 04.02.2004 passed by respondent herein. The said order reads as hereunder:Sub: Re-allotment of delivery note with respect to Iron ore fines as against the delivery order dated 05.12.2003.Ref. (1) Your letter dated 14.11.2003(2) Our letter of intent dated 17.11.2003.(3) Delivery order dated 05.12.2003.With reference to the above subject, our company had released 20,000 Mts. Of +65% iron ore fines from our Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mine. After receiving Rs. 31.00 lakhs of advance amount as per the letter of intent at Rs. 175/- per PDMT inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-20-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Kant186; ILR2009KAR1580:2009(3)KCCRSN107:2009(4)AIRKarR284:AIR2009Kar186
V. Jagannathan, J.1. As common question of law arises for consideration in these two appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the cases, the Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that the accidents in question were caused on account of the buses, which were driven under the control of the K.S.R.T.C. In both the cases, though the buses in question belong to the registered owners, the K.S.R.T.C. had taken them on hire under an agreement with the registered owners.3. M.F.A. No. 8042/2006 is preferred by the N.W.K.R.T.C. aggrieved by the liability being put on it exclusively to satisfy the award amount and in M.F.A. No. 11440/2007, the liability was put on the Insurance Company with whom the registered owner had insured the bus. The contention of the Road Transport Corporation in both the cases is that the buses in question were owned by the registered owners, who had insured them with the Insurance Company and, therefore, the K.S.R.T.C. is not liable. Wher...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-24-2009
Reported in : ILR2009KAR3207; 2009(6)KarLJ279
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. One Ganesh (deceased), son of the appellant/petitioner, while travelling as a pillion rider on TVS 50 bearing registration No. CAT 1296, sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed, on account of an accident caused to said vehicle, by the driver of goods tempo bearing registration No. KA.07/1546, which belonged to the 1st respondent. The said goods tempo vehicle was insured by the 2nd respondent. Ganesh was unmarried. He left behind him, his parents as his only heirs and legal representatives. A claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) stating loss of dependency. The petition was contested by the respondents. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed. Father of the deceased, while deposing as PW1 has stated that his deceased son was aged 25 years as on the date of accident; was employed and was earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. and was maintaining the family. Pw2 was examined to prove employment and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-24-2009
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(Kar)335; [2010]321ITR209(KAR); [2010]321ITR209(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The above appeals are all by the revenue directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, where under the Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by different resident - assessees in respect of different assessment years by holding that the resident - assessees were not liable for deduction of any part of the payments made by them to non-resident suppliers as price (for consideration) for the software which the resident - assessees had acquired/purchased from the non-residents for the purposes of the activities/business of the resident -assessees in the background of the nature of their liability/obligation under the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] by holding that the subject payments were not in the nature of royally payments within the meaning of Section 9[1][vi] of the Act and if it is not royalty it is not income and if it was not income in the hands of the non-resident as...
Tag this Judgment!