Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 1984 Page 2 of about 32 results (0.007 seconds)

Sep 06 1984 (HC)

C. Munichowdappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-06-1984

Reported in : ILR1984KAR858; 1985(1)KarLJ110; (1985)ILLJ356Kant

ordermurlidhar rao, j.1. this writ petition has been referred to a division bench by bopanna, j., by his order dated 2nd april, 1982, since his lordship felt that the interpretation placed by his lordship in raghavendra rao, n. s. v. state of karnataka & others (1981 (1) kar. l.j. 56), requires to be examined by a larger bench, as the question involved, is of considerable importance. his lordship has also referred another matter to a division bench in w.p. no. 5073 of 1980. 2. the sum and substance of the order of reference is, whether it is incumbent on the government, to examine the gravity of punishment imposed on the workman, objectively before it refuses to make a reference under ss. 10 and 12(5) of the industrial disputes act (hereinafter referred to as the act). the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a security guard in the security department of the third respondent - the management of the indian telephone industries ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the i.t.i.), by producing the true copy of certificate issued by the officer commanding, depot, regiment (crops of signals), jabalpur, dated 23rd july, 1968. in his application for appointment, he had stated that he was an ex-army personnel having served the unit crops of signals from 18th june, 1957 to 13th june, 1972 with army no. 6240571. the petitioner was given appointment, subject to the verification of the certificate, produced by him. the iti made a reference to the concerned military .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1984 (HC)

B.S. Giridhar Vs. P.V. Shetty

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-06-1984

Reported in : ILR1984KAR1115; 1985(1)KarLJ105

ordermurlidher rao, j.1. this revision petition has come up before us, on a reference by sabhahit, j., vide order dated 10-4-1984; as in his lordship's view, the decision of the division bench in raghunandan prasad garg v. d. sree sreeramsetty & others, 1974 (2) k.l.j. 224 to the extent it excludes the 'tenant' as defined in the karnataka rent control act, by interpreting section 31 therein, requires reconsideration in the light of the law laid down in mani subrat jain v. raja ramvohra, : [1980]2scr141 2.the facts of the case are precisely narrated in the order of reference; to the extent they are relevant to our purpose, we summarise them as follows :revision petitioner is the owner of non-residential premises, bearing no. 23, j. c. road, bangalore. petitioner's father, during the petitioner's minority, leased it to respondent, by executing a registered lease deed dated 10-9-1973, for a period of five years from 1-1-1973; so it expired on 1-1-1978. on 6-3-1978, the owner issued a notice, calling upon the tenant, to vacate the premises and deliver the same to the landlord. the landlord has not accepted the rents, subsequent to 1-1-1978. the agreed rent is rs. 650/- per month. since the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord filed a suit in o.s.762 of 1978 (subsequently renumbered as o. s. 3758 of 1980); we are told that the proceedings in the said suit, are stayed by the supreme court, awaiting decision in this civil revision petition. the suit was filed on 16-8- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1984 (HC)

Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-04-1984

Reported in : 1995(76)ELT571(Kar)

order1. as the parties in these cases are common and the questions that arise for determination are either common or inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. i therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. among others, the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of power driven pumps called 'monoblock pumps' (hereinafter referred to as the 'pumps') at its factory situated at yediyur of bangalore city and on the pumps so manufactured, it filed the requisite price and classification lists before the competent officer under the central excises and salt act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the act) claiming that they were dutiable under tariff item entry no. 30-a of the act who approved the same. on that basis, the petitioner paid the duties payable thereon under the act for the period from 18-4-1972 to 31-7-1972. 3. but, on 3-8-1982, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under rule 10-a(2) of the central excises and salt rules, 1944 to show cause for recovery of difference of duty short-levied for the aforesaid period, in response to which, the petitioner filed its objection before the assistant collector of central excise, bangalore division, bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the assistant collector) opposing the same. on 26-10-1972, the assistant collector by his order of that date (exhibit-b) over-ruled the objections of the petitioner and confirmed the show cause notice and directed the petitioner to pay the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1984 (HC)

Bapuji Educational Association Vs. State

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-03-1984

Reported in : AIR1986Kant119

order1. in this batch of writ petitions, in which the petitioners, who are the managements as also individuals, who are members of the management of various private engineering colleges in the state, have questioned the constitutional validity of the karnataka educational institutions (prohibition of capitation fee) act, 1984 ('the act' for short) and orders issued thereunder, the following main question arises forconsideration :where the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under arts. 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution includes the right to establish and administer the educational institutions of their choice? and if.so, whether the act which prohibits the collection of capitation fee for admission to education institutions except to the extent permitted by an order made under the proviso to s. 3 of the act is violative all or any of those articles and, arts. 14, 31a and 300a of the constitution?facts of the case :originally the writ petitions were presented questioning the constitutional validity of the karnataka educational institutions (prohibition of capitation fee) ordinance, 1984 promulgated by the governor on 9-7-1984 and the order dt. 18-7-1984 issued there under fixing the intake of the petitioner institutions and also the number of government seats at 40% of the intake. subsequently, during the pendency of these petitions come into force and consequently applications were made for amendment of the prayer in the. petitions praying for striking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1984 (HC)

K. Chandrasekhar and ors. Vs. Management of Binny Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-29-1984

Reported in : ILR1984KAR840; 1984(2)KarLJ389; (1985)IILLJ65Kant

ordernesargi, j.1. these two writ petitions have been referred to the division bench by bopanna, j., along with few other writ petitions namely, w.p. nos. 3122, 3115, 3116 of 1976, w.p. no. 670 of 1980, w.p. no. 2014 of 1979 and w.p. no. 2681 of 1978. the opinion, expressed in the order of reference, is that interpretation of standing order no. 2(c) of the standing orders of the industry, in question, is involved. 2. we have heard the advocate for the petitioners in w.ps. nos. 3122, 3115, 3116 of 1976, w.p. no. 670 of 1980, w.p. no. 2014 of 1979 and w.p. no. 2681 of 1978. at this stage, we found that the crucial question involved in these two writ petitions, namely, w.ps. nos. 1632 and 1633 of 1979 is not common to the other writ petitions. therefore, we have isolated these two petitions for disposal and have heard the counsel on both sides. it is in this background, we are proceeding to make this order in these two writ petitions. 3. the crucial question involved in these two writ petitions is whether the common order dated 10th august, 1976 passed by the additional industrial tribunal, bangalore, is to be quashed. these two writ petitions arise out of sl. no. 81 of 1969 in a.i.d. no. 31 of 1969 and sl. no. 82 of 1975 in a.i.d. no. 31 of 1969 before the additional industrial tribunal. 4. the workman concerned in sl. no. 80 of 1975 in a.i.d. no. 31 of 1969 is one b. k. thyagaraja. he had also impugned the said order in w.p. no. 1631 of 1979 but the same has been settled. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1984 (HC)

M.S. Seethamma Vs. M.K. Neelamma

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-28-1984

Reported in : ILR1985KAR883

kudoor, j.1. this regular second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1975 passed in r. a. no. 22/71 by the civil judge at coorg, mercara dismissing the appeal brought by the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant andconfirming the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1964 passed by themunsiff at mercara in o.s. no. 436/51, a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of her title and also for possession of the plaint schedule properties together with future mesne profits and costs etc.2. the case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint may briefly be stated as under.certain moolemajalu somayya and chinnappa along with belliappa and subbanna (defendants-1 and 2 in the suit) formed a joint hindu family governed by the mitak-shara school of hindu law owning certain movable and immovable properties. the said somayya instituted o. s. no. 6/25 on the file of the then subordinate judge of coorg against chinnappa, his wife muddamma, belliappa, subbanna and jone bangarakodi derappa for partition of the joint family properties and separation of the plaintiff's share and allotment of the same to him. in that suit, a compromise decree came to be passed on 8-1-1926. under the said compromise decree, the plaint 'a' schedule properties were allotted to the share of chinnappa. the plaint 'b' schedule properties were recognised as the separate properties of muddamma. besides, muddamma was also the owner of plaint 'c' schedule properties having purchased the same under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1984 (HC)

Visvarama Hotels Ltd. Vs. Anjuman-e-imamia

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-22-1984

Reported in : ILR1983KAR223; 1984(2)KarLJ185

orderputtaswamy, j.1. civil revision petition no. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8-7-1982 of the xii additional city civil judge, bangalore in o.s. no- 8041 of 1980 brought by respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs in that suit. civil revision petition no. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the state of karnataka against the very same order of the learned judge. but, in that case the state has filed a memo on 30-3-1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to writ petition no. 7525 of 1983 by one sri g.p. shivaprakash, an advocate of this court. in the course of my order hereafter, i will refer to those who are parties in o. s. no. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the state of karnataka, petitioner in c. r. p. no. 2995 of 1982 which is respondent-i in writ petition no. 7556 of 1983 as the state and sri g. p. shivaprakash, petitioner in writ petition no. 7556 of 198) as the petitioner.2. in order to appreciate the several questions that arise in these cases, that are connected, some of which are even novel and appear to have arisen for determination for the first time before a high court in the country, it is necessary to notice the salient facts in the first instance.3. on 15-10-1973 muthavallies of a wakf called 'against ali askar wakf' created by one ah askar of bangalore,paternal grand father of sir mirza esmail, on e of the illustrious dewans of old mysore, with the approval of the karnataka board of wakfs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1984 (HC)

Hajaresab Vs. Udachappa Deceased by L.Rs.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-21-1984

Reported in : ILR1984KAR900

orderkulkarni, j.1. this revision by the decree holder is directed against the order dated 3-7-1979 passed by the munsiff, kundagol, in execution case no. 3 of 1977.2. the decree holder plaintiff filed a suit in o.s.no.30 of 1972 against one udachappa, the husband of l.r.no. 1 (d) and father of l.r. nos.l (a) to l(c) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining him (udachappa) from interfering with his possession. the said suit was decreed in 1973 against udachappa. udachappa's appeal in r.a.no. 180 of 1973 was dismissed on 24-7-1974.3. the decree holder sued out the present execution in 1977 alleging that notwithstanding the permanent injunction decree against udachappa, his l.rs. l(a) to (d) have started interfering with his possession of the suitproperty. thus, according to him, the legal representatives have willfully failed to obey the decree. hence, he filed the execution praying for arrest and detention under order 21 rule 32 of the code of civil procedure. he also sought to recover the costs awarded to him in o.s no. 30 of 1972 and r.a.no. 180 of 1973.4. so far as regards the costs are concerned, the legal representatives cannot escape the liability. the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree against the l.rs., of the original defendant for recovering the costs. the l.rs., would be liable to the extent of the property of the deceased that has come to their hands. the costs can be recovered by thedecree .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1984 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Datacons (P.) Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-20-1984

Reported in : (1985)47CTR(Kar)162; ILR1985KAR1109; [1985]155ITR66(KAR); [1985]155ITR66(Karn)

jagannatha shetty, j.1. this is a reference under s. 256(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, and the question of law referred is : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is correct in law in treating the assessee either as a manufacturer of goods or as engaged in the processing of goods within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1977 ?' 2. the assessee is a company. it claimed that it was an industrial company as defined under s. 2(7)(c) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1977. if it was an industrial company, it would be entitled to be taxed at a concessional rate. the ito rejected that claim and assessed the income by applying normal rate of taxation, but in appeal before the aac, the assessee succeeded. 3. the department preferred an appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal after hearing the arguments, made a local inspection of the assessee's premises to know what the assessee was really doing. the members of the tribunal personally observed the operation of the computers installed by the assessee. a note was also prepared by the learned counsel for the assessee and given to the members of the tribunal. that note gives the full description of the activities of the assessee with the help of the computers. the members of the tribunal, after personal observation and after considering the note given by the assessee's representative, observed : 'it may be stated that the data which the assessee receives in the form of cash .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1984 (HC)

Seetharamiah Vs. Land Tribunal

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-17-1984

Reported in : ILR1985KAR975

ordermalimath, c.j.1. the appellants had presented applications under section 48-a of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act,), to the land tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in their favour in respect of certain lands. the land tribunal having rejected their applications,the appellants challenged the order of the tribunal in writ petitions nos. 4891,15819 and 15819 and 15820/79. the learned single judge, by a common order madeon 15-7-1980, dismissed the said writ petitions. hence these appeals. 2. the land tribunal has, after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, written a well considered order dealing with all thecontentions urged by the rival parties. the land tribunal had given ample opportunity to all the parties of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases. the learned single judge after carefully considering all the contentions has rightly come to the conclusion that on merits there is no case made out by the appellants calling for interference with the order of the land tribunal. as the land tribunal has recorded satisfactory findings on proper consideration of all the relevant material after giving an opportunity to all the parties of adducing evidence, it is not possible to interfere with the findings recorded by the tribunal. 3. it was, however, contended by sri u. l. narayana rao, learned counsel for the appellants, that thestatements of the witnesses examined before .....

Tag this Judgment!


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