Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 53 results (0.030 seconds)

Jun 21 2001 (HC)

State of Karnataka Vs. Veerabhadrappa and Another

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-21-2001

Reported in : II(2001)DMC411; 2001(4)KarLJ150

..... house during the ugadi festival, the deceased told her parents that it is not possible to bear the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused. thereafter, due to mediation by elders, the deceased went back to her husband's house. thereafter, within 15 days, they received the sad news of the death of the deceased.13. p.w. 7 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2001 (HC)

B.D.K. Process Controls Private Limited, Hubli and Another Vs. Bharati ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-29-2001

Reported in : [2002(94)FLR416]; 2001(5)KarLJ621

..... contravention, may make complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner.- (a) to such conciliation officer or board, and the conciliation officer or board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrialdispute; and (b) to such arbitrator, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, labour court, tribunal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2001 (HC)

Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore Vs. Venkataramappa K.S. and o ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-04-2001

Reported in : 2003ACJ597; ILR2002KAR887; 2002(2)KarLJ345

k.l. manjunath, j.1. this appeal is by the k.s.r.t.c. the respondents 1 to 8 presented a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of one shivanna who was the brother of the claimants. he died in a road traffic accident on 21-6-1994 at about 7.10 p.m. near k.e.b. office on nh-4 at mulbagal. he was a passenger in a bus bearing no. myf 7365 owned by the appellant. the driver of the bus dashed the bus against a parked lorry bearing no. ka 19-3754. due to the said accident, shivanna died on the spot. the respondents-claimants filed a petition claiming compensation on account of the death of said shivanna. according to them, he was aged about 30 years and was a promising agriculturist. in addition to that, he was also doing milk vending business. according to them, he was getting an income of rs. 5,000/- per month. the tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the deceased was getting an income of rs. 2,400/- per month and out of which l/3rd amount is deducted towards his personal expenses and then applying the multiplier of 15, a sum of rs. 2,88,000/- is arrived at towards loss of dependency. in addition to that, the tribunal has also awarded rs. 10,oooa towards shock, agony, sufferings and love and affection and rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. the k.s.r.t.c. is also directed to pay 9% interest per annum. being aggrieved by the order and award of the tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the k.s.r.t.c.2. learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2001 (HC)

Ningappa Basappa Harijan and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-05-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ302

orderthe court1. the petitioners claim that they are landless agriculturists belonging to scheduled caste/tribes. they were granted different extent of lands in sy. nos. 2 and 7 of naganoor village. they claim that lands were government lands. they are aggrieved by the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 5th respondent.2. the 5th respondent filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in the aforementioned lands under the provisions of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 and rules framed thereunder. the land tribunal has rejected her application by its order at annexure-e, dated 20-1-1977. the appeal filed by the 5th respondent against the order of the land tribunal was allowed by the erstwhile land reforms appellate authority by its order at annexure-f, dated 23-12-1988, the order of land tribunal was set aside and 5th respondent was granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. pursuant to the same, certificate in form 10 under karnataka land reforms rules as per annexure-h has been granted in favour of the 5th respondent. thereafter, the notice at annexure-j was issued by the village accountant that mutation was made in the name of 5th respondent in respect of the land in question on the basis of grant of occupancy rights in her favour by the erstwhile land reforms appellate authority. petitioners are seeking to quash annexure-h and j and to declare the grant of occupancy rights in favour of 5th respondent as null and void contending that the lands .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2001 (HC)

Hemavathi Laxmangowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-30-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ340

1. the appellant before us is an elected member of the balappa gram panchayat in sulia taluk, dakshina kannada district and, she was also elected as the adhyaksha of the panchayat. it is her case that a no-confidence motion was submitted and the usual allegation has been made to the effect that this no-confidence motion was vitiated by certain mala fide reasons which are common in politics. pursuant to the submission of this no-confidence motion, the assistant commissioner who is respondent 2 fixed a meeting on 26-5-2001 and the appellant originally filed writ petition no. 19717 of 2001 questioning the action but the writ petition came to be dismissed by this court. thereafter, the appellant filed a second writ petition no. 24590 of 2001 which is the present writ petition wherein a two-fold contention has been raised, the first being that there is a violation of sub-rules (5) and (6) of rule 3 of the karnataka panchayat raj (motion of no-confidence against adhyaksha and upadyaksha of gram panchayat) rules, 1994. essentially, what had been contended was that it is a mandatory requirement that the meeting must be convened within a period of thirty days and secondly, that the relevant rules also provide for a situation where by the meeting in question cannot be adjourned for any reason. the third ancillary conten-tion raised was that if for any reason the no-confidence motion does not go through, that then it, is not permissible to reconvene the meeting for consideration of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R. Metrani

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-09-2001

Reported in : (2001)169CTR(Kar)149; [2001]251ITR244(KAR); [2001]251ITR244(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN612(Kar)

r. gururajan, j.1. these references are at the instance of the revenue as well as at the instance of the assessee. the facts and law involved in all these references are interrelated and hence we have heard all the three references together. a common order is passed in this order disposing of all these three references. the two references at the instance of the revenue are i. t. r. c. nos. 39 and 40 of 1996.facts in i. t. r, c. no. 39 of 1996 :2. this reference relates to the assessment in the case of p. r. metrani, a hindu undivided family (for short 'the huf') for the assessment year 1981-82. the assessment was initially concluded on september 17, 1984, in terms of section 143(3) read with section 144b of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act). the controversy relates to an income assessed for a sum of rs. 19,95,117. a search was conducted by the department in the residential premises of metrani, viz., ranganatha nilaya, and during the search, documents were seized and based on the search documents two items were added, viz., rs. 7,26,810 and rs. 12,68,307, totalling to rs. 19,95,117 as earned in business for the assessment year 1981-82. the assessing authority in the order dated september 17, 1984, referred to these additions by relying on prms 1 and 13. prm 1 refers to a net profit of rs. 7,26,810 from bombay and parel transactions and prm 13 is based on other income, totalling rs. 12,68,307 (rs. 8,05,000 + rs. 4,63,507). the assessing authority ordered a total .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2001 (HC)

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Seeds Corpo ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2001

Reported in : (2002)IILLJ1068Kant

d.v. shylendra kumar, j. 1. this is an appeal by the employees' state insurance corporation under the provisions of section 82(2) of the employees' state insurance act, 1948 ('the act' for short), directed against the order dated september 23, 1998, passed by the e.i. court, bangalore, in esi application no. 108 of 1989, being aggrieved by the allowing of the said application whereby the e.i. court had set aside the order of the appellant-corporation calling upon the respondent to implement the various provisions of the act in respect of employees in its office at bangalore and various branches outside bangalore and demanding contributions under the act. 2. the endeavour of the appellant-corporation is to cover the employees of the respondent-karnataka state seeds corporation under the provisions of the act so that the benefits flowing under the provisions of the act endure to the employees of the respondent-corporation whereas the respondent-corporation appears to be quite averse to this course of action by the esi corporation and would like to avoid the same and in this context, has set up several legal hurdles by way of defence and this appeal is filed by the corporation to surmount those legal hurdles. 3. having regard to the controversy as it arises in this appeal, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the provisions of the act will be applicable to the respondent-karnataka state seeds corporation and its branches in the peculiar facts and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2001 (HC)

Saraswathi Estate Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-19-2001

Reported in : [2001]251ITR168(KAR); [2001]251ITR168(Karn)

orderrevisional authority set aside order of appellate authority deleting penalty under section 22(1)(d)catch note:though there was nothing coming in way of revisional authority himself exercising power to levy penalty under section 22, as he was an authority so empowered under section 22 itself--exercise of power under section 35, for restoring order of penalty levied by an assessing authority which had been set aside erroneously by an appellate authority, is also an order well within powers and jurisdiction of revisional authority and two powers are independent of one another.held:the concept of an order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue cannot be restricted to cases where there is actually loss of revenue in the matter of quantification of the tax liability. the very object of levy of penalty is to ensure that there is compliance with the requirement of law and the object of the act, inevitably is the collection of revenue for the state. an order of penalty is an order which is passed as a deterrent to dissuade errant assessees from indulging in acts of suppression of income or furnishing of inaccurate or false particulars of income resulting in loss of revenue to the state. the levy of penalty under the act has definitely a purpose to achieve namely, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the act and to discourage non-compliance. if an order of penalty is justified in the facts and circumstances of a given case, it is an order to be sustained and a later .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2001 (HC)

Modinbi and ors. Vs. the Kalal Khatik Samaj Seva Sangha and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-07-2001

Reported in : ILR2001KAR2909; 2002(1)KarLJ180

n.k. patil, j.1. the appellants herein aggrieved by the order dated 27-11-2000 passed by the learned single judge in writ petition no. 25196 of 1999 have preferred this appeal.2. the said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned single judge on 27-11-2000. the writ petition was allowed and the impugned cancellation of notification dated 3-7-1998 under section 48(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and published in karnataka gazette, dated 25th march, 1999, denotifying an extent of 32 guntas in sy. no. 46/c was quashed. the appellants, who were respondents 5 to 10 in the writ petition, are before this court.3. the third respondent issued the preliminary notification dated 22nd may, 1986 under section 4(1) of the act, at the instance of the first respondent for the purpose of burial ground, which was followed by the final notification dated 11-7-1987 issued under section 6(1) of the act. it is stated by the appellants that though the extent of sy. no. 46/c is 1 acre 16 guntas, 23 guntas were separately acquired for n.h. 4 and only 32 guntas were available. the final notification was issued in regard to 32 guntas and the award was passed to that extent only as early as on 29th september, 1987. thereafter, the possession of the said land was taken on 9-10-1988 and handed over to the first respondent-society. later necessary changes were made in the village records as per mutation entry no. 1834. the entire acquisition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2001 (HC)

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries C ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-31-2001

Reported in : [2002(94)FLR659]; (2001)IILLJ930Kant

chidananda ullal, j. 1. this miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the employees' state insurance corporation to challenge the order dated december 31, 1996, passed in esi application no. 11 of 1991. 2. the appellant-corporation is represented by learned counsel sri narasimha holla. the respondent-establishment is represented by sri b. palakshaiah. learned counsel for the appellant- corporation had taken me through the history of the litigation between the parties, and further the orders impugned in the instant appeal. 3. at the outset, he submitted that in esi application no. 16 of 1978 filed by the respondent-establishment as against the appellant-corporation, the e.i. court had directed the esi corporation to pass a fresh order under section 45-a based on the actual wages paid with reference to the actual number of workers in the establishment of the respondent while upholding the coverage of the act in respect of the respondent establishment, and that the period of contribution for the earlier litigation was july 1, 1974 to may 28, 1977. while adverting to the impugned order under challenge, sri holla had also argued that the impugned order passed by the e.i. court was under section 85-b of the act, for there was delay in payment of the contribution for the subsequent period from may 29, 1977 to august 31, 1983, when it was not in dispute before the e.i. court that the respondent establishment did commit default in payment of the contribution well in time. according to .....

Tag this Judgment!

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