Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 5 of about 95 results (0.028 seconds)

Jun 13 2005 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-13-2005

Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Kar)585; [2005]279ITR226(KAR); [2005]279ITR226(Karn)

orderh.l. dattu, j.1. since in all these references the dispute between the assessee and the revenue is of identical nature and they arise out of the same facts but pertains to different assessment years, namely, 1977-78 to 1986-87, we intend to dispose of these reference cases by this common judgment.2. a few relevant facts need to be noticed in order to appreciate the contentions raised and canvassed in these reference cases. they are :the assessee is sri srikantadatta narasimharaja wadiyar (minor huf). the assessment years are 1977-78 to 1985-86. bangalore palace was the private property of late sri jayachamarajendra wodeyar, the former ruler of the princely state of mysore. the total extent of bangalore palace is 554 acres or 1837365.36 sq. mt. it comprises of residential units, non-residential units and land appurtenant thereto, roads and masonary structures along the contour and the vacant land. the vacant land measures 11,66,377.34 sq. mt. sri jayachamarajendra wodeyar expired on 23rd sept., 1974. there was a dispute with regard to wealth-tax assessments of sri jayachamarajendra wodeyar pertaining to asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1976-77. after the death of sri jayachamarajendra wodeyar, his son sri srikantadatta wodeyar applied to settlement commission to get the dispute settled with regard to valuation of bangalore palace and the same came to be decided on 29th sept., 1988 for the assessment years namely, 1967-68 to 1976-77. the valuation date was 31st march of each calendar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2005 (HC)

Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (Hmt Ltd.) and anr. Vs. Workmen of Hmt ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-16-2005

Reported in : [2005(107)FLR694]; ILR2005KAR4656; 2005(4)KarLJ606

p. vishwanatha shetty, j. 1. the appellants in this appeal have called in question the correctness of the order dated 9th february, 2001 made in writ petition no. 19893 of 1994 by the learned single judge of this court workmen of hindustan machine tools limited, specialised watch case division v. hindustan machine tools limited and ors., : (2001)illj1449kant wherein, he has taken the view that the workers of the hmt limited, specialised watch case division, i.e., the 2nd appellant, are entitled to receive bonus from the appellants for the year 1983-84 onwards. 2. since the 1st respondent, though served with the notice, failed to enter appearance, we requested sri m.v. vedachala, learned counsel who was present in the court, to assist the court in this appeal as amicus curiae in support of the case of the 1st respondent.3. facts in brief.--the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the workmen union') had raised a dispute with regard to their claim for monthly performances incentive and also for payment of bonus for the year 1983-84 onwards. on failure of conciliation, the state government referred the dispute to the additional industrial tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') under section 10(1)(d) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for adjudication. during the pendency of the proceedings, with regard to the claim of the workmen union for monthly performance incentives, the claim was settled between the parties and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (HC)

P. Keshava Murthy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secret ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4772; 2006(3)KarLJ271

orderk.l. manjunath, j.1. i have heard the counsel for the review petitioner and govt. advocate for respondent-1 and counsel for respondents-2 to 4.2. the petitioner herein had filed writ petition in no. 41864/2002 challenging the endorsement refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 4 acres of land situated in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahali taluk. the endorsement further reads that compensation would be paid to the petitioner provided he gets a declaratory relief from the competent civil court. challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court contending that one rudramuni was the owner of 4 acres of land in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahalli taluk and he had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15.9.84. since the date of purchase, he was in lawful possession of the same. according to him. his vendor rudramuni had been granted this land under a grant certificate. it was the case of the petitioner that all the revenue records were standing in the name of the vendor prior to purchase of the property and subsequently mutation entries and other revenue entries were transferred to the petitioner. he has also produced the saguvali chit issued in favour of his vendor by the revenue authorities as per annexure-e to the writ petition. a notification under section 28(1) of the karnataka industrial area development act, 1966 was issued on 8.6.96 proposing to acquire the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2005 (HC)

Hanumath Bheemappa Sanadi and ors. Vs. Rudrappa Thammanna Sanadi and o ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-20-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant393; ILR2005KAR3430

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of civil judge (senior division) gokak, in ra. 30/1998 dated 5.12.2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed in o.s.no. 692/89 by the court of additional civil judge (junior division) raibag and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in o.s.no. 692/89.2. the essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for a decree for equitable partition awarding 2/3rd share or legitimate share of the plaintiffs with separate possession in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and costs.3. it is averred in the plaint that hanamant sanadi was the original propositus. he had three sons by name tammani, yamanappa and bhimappa and two daughters kallawwa and kashavva. kallawwa and kashawa have died. the plaintiff no. 6 is the wife. plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the children of bhimappa. plaintiff no. 5 is the son of yamanappa. plaintiff no. 6 is the wife of late yamanappa. plaintiff nos. 7 and 8 are daughters of yamanappa and defendants 1, 2, 3 are the sons of tammani. defendant no. 4 is the wife of late tammani. tangewa is the wife of defendant no. 2 and defendants 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant no. 1. it is averred in the plaint that original propositus was serving as sanadi for the village alakanur and he was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited Vs. Bangal ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ARBLR254(Kar); 2005(2)CTLJ451(Kar); 2005(5)KarLJ112

v. jagannathan, j.1. legality of the termination of the contract entered into by the bangalore development authority ('bda' for short) with the uttar pradesh state bridge construction corporation limited ('appellant-corporation' for short), which has been upheld by the learned single judge, is the subject-matter of these two appeals and as the issues involved are in principle identical, the two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. the facts that are material for our purpose are as under:the bda, which is the first respondent herein, has taken up infrastructure developmental work in bangalore city and as a part of it, by its notice inviting tender dated 4-11-2002 invited tenders on turnkey basis for construction of grade separators/flyovers at various places viz.:1. the intersection of airport road and intermediate ring road junction;2. bangalore dairy circle; 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 has been known for specialised work in the field of construction of bridges, hydraulic and other structures and over the years built up a reputation and has to its credit, construction of bridges of national importance and also several projects in other countries. the appellant's response to the tender was accepted by the bda and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Mungappa and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4174; 2006(4)KarLJ114

ordershylendra kumar, j.1. these two writ petitions are by brothers, who had claimed as the legal heirs of one nagamma, a person belonging to scheduled caste community and in whose favour an extent of 1 acre of land in sy.no. 155 of hoodi village k.r. puram hobli, bangalore had been granted in terms of the sanction order dated 25-6-1952, issued by the revenue commissioner in no. d.dis.c1.dr.177/51-52. the sanction order was one sanctioning the grant of land to an extent of 9 acres 39 guntas in the said survey number to nine persons mentioned in the order, who belong to adi-karnataka community, i.e, an extent of 1 acre in favour of each person, in accordance with the rules governing the grant of land to persons belonging to depressed class.2. this sanction order was followed by an individual grant order dated 30-3-1954 in favour of the said nagamma, granting her one acre of land subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated permanently, as the grant was free of cost, and further a saguvali chit was issued on 23-10-1954, where under also, the condition that the land cannot be alienated by the granted permanently had been mentioned.3. it is such land that had been sold by the daughter of the original grantee smt. byramma in terms of the sale deed dated 16-4-1968 in favour of one ramanujalu reddy-father of the third respondent. it is in respect of this transaction, the petitioner in wp no. 31938 of 2004 had filed an application to the assistant commissioner under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2005

Reported in : (2007)7VST252(Karn)

orderd.v. shylendra kumar j.1. all these petitions are by dealers under the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the act'), who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the commercial tax officers at check-posts and the commercial tax officer, mobile squad, who had occasion to intercept the goods vehicles carrying the goods taxable under the act. in all these instances, the respondent-officers having passed orders in exercise of the power under section 28-aaa of the act for effecting compulsory purchase of the goods in question at the price as declared in the supporting documents and the petitioners having been deprived of such goods and in the light of the orders being entitled to receive only the price as had been indicated therein, are before this court challenging the legality of these orders, while also questioning the constitutional validity of the very provision, namely, section 28-aaa of the act, which reads as under:28-aaa. power to purchase in case of under valuation of goods to evade tax.-(1) where in respect of goods liable to tax under this act, carried in a goods vehicle or boat or held in stock by any dealer or on his behalf by any other person or held in custody of any transporter, the assessing authority or any officer empowered under section 28 or 28-a, has reason to believe that the value shown in the document accompanying the goods in transit or the purchase invoice, is lower than the prevailing market price or fair market value or mrp by a difference .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 2005 (HC)

Amar Promoters and anr. Vs. J.S.A. Gajendra Reddy and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-24-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)KarLJ273

anand byrareddy, j.1. this appeal by the contesting defendants 6 and 7 is preferred against the judgment and decree directing delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and further directing an enquiry for mesne profits from date of suit till date of delivery of possession and subject to such determination, the defendants to pay a sum of rs. 6,250/-per month.2. the facts of the case are as follows.--respondent 1, the plaintiff before the trial court, is the owner of land at no. 1 (old no. 34), i cross, gandhinagar, bangalore, which is described under the schedule to the plaint, measuring approximately about 10,000 sq. ft. the same was conveyed under a registered lease deed dated 29-12-1983 in favour of m/s. srinivasa trust, defendant 1 in the suit, a private trust. the broad terms of the lease deed, inter alia were as follows.--(a) the term of lease was 40 years, commencing from the date of deed;(b) the lessee was to construct, as its cost, a multi-storied non-residential commercial building within a period of three years, failing which, the lessor was entitled to determine the lease under a six months notice and regain possession of the property;(c) the lessee was entitled to occupy the entire building and sub-let the same to third parties during the tenure of the lease. except that, consent of the lessee was to be obtained after the 35th year of the lease, in respect of any fresh induction;(d) the rent payable by the lessee to the lessor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

The Managment of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Mr. S.M. Ravi Kumar an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR580]; ILR2006KAR445

..... officers - (1) the appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.(2) a conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area or for one ..... and keeping in mind the object of the power conferred on him. from the scheme of the act, it is clear that conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industries peace. therefore, once the conciliation officer is satisfied that there is an existing industrial dispute or ..... as convening of a meeting between the management and the workmen. from the scheme of the act it is clear that the conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industrial peace. therefore, it would not be permissible for him not to initiate conciliation proceedings, if in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 2005 (HC)

H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and ors. Vs. the Karnataka Election Commission and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-30-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR3323

orderh.n. naga mohan das, j.1. father of the nation mahatma gandhi wrote in the weekly 'harijan' as under:-'true democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. it has to be worked from below by the people of every village....''independence must begin at the bottom. thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. it follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. it will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any on slough from without. thus, ultimately, it is individual who is the unit. this does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. it will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces. such a society is necessarily highly cultured in which every man and woman knows what he or she wants and, what is more, knows that no one should want anything that others cannot have with equal labour'.2. after independence, india became republic in 1950 by accepting the world's biggest written constitution. the preamble of the constitution reads as under:-'we, the people of india, having solemnly resolved to constitute india into a soverign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens:justice, social, economic and political;liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and workship;equality of status and of opportunity;and to promote .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //