Karnataka Court March 2001 Judgments
Secretary, John Fowler Employees Union Vs. Managing Director, John Fow ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1101]; ILR2001KAR2272; (2001)IILLJ22Kant
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the Employees' Union which made the application before the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bangalore, under Section 75(1)(g) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The case of the Union is that the employees who draw salary more than the ceiling limit as on the date of commencement of the contribution period are not liable to pay any contribution even if their salary were to come below the ceiling limits during the currency of that contribution period. The E.S.I. Court dismissed the application filed by the Union holding that the interpretation given by the Deputy Director, E.S.I. Corporation by letter dated July 3, 1998 is correct.3. Sri B.V. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Section 2(9)(iii)(b) provides that an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government a month at any time after and not before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Amateur Riders' Institute Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR587]; ILR2001KAR3029; (2001)IILLJ746Kant
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the E.I. Court on the application filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'Act').2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is a firm engaged in imparting training to the members and students and is run on 'no profit no loss basis' in horse riding and it collects fees for that service and therefore, it is not shop so as to apply the provisions of the Act.3. From the evidence adduced before the E.I. Court, it is seen that the appellant is engaged in the business of horse riding. If that is so, the question that arises for consideration is:'whether the appellant's firm is a shop or not?'The State Government by virtue of the power conferred on it under Section 1(5) of the Act has issued a notification extending the application of the Act even to the shops, road transport establishments, cinema including newspaper establishments emp...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tungamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant252; ILR2001KAR2785
ORDERThe Court 1. The members of the Elected Committee of the APMC, Davangere have filed this petition, challenging the notification of the State Government of Karnataka bifurcating Davangere APMC into that of 'Davangere' and 'Jagalur' in exercise of the powers under Section 145 of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioners have contended in the writ petition that, at an election held on 24-7-1997 petitioners and 2 others were elected for the Committee, while 3 others were nominated to the Committee of management of Davangere, APMC. The term of office was for 5 years. The third respondent herein was elected as the President of the Committee. While the Committee was functioning, respondent 1 issued a notification dated 28-6-1999 vide Annexure-B proposing to bifurcate the APMC, Davangere and inviting objections. Petitioner/Committee had passed a resolutio...
Tag this Judgment!Wale Babu Vs. the Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2014; 2001(6)KarLJ516
ORDERThe Court 1. This is a writ petition presented by an employee of Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited, who was working as an Assistant in the said company, claiming for the relief of directions to be issued to the second respondent to consider the representations dated 9-8-2000, 26-8-2000 and 14-10-2000 (vide Annexures-C1 to C3 to the petition) and to pass orders on the same on the premise that the petitioner had attended certain enquiries which is a special duty which in all works out to 77 days. 2. The petitioner has also sought for another direction to direct the respondents to sanction special leave of 20 days to the petitioner on the premise that he was engaged in the elections to the Staff and Employees Union of the respondent-company etc. 3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been compelled to seek such relief in the context of certain enquiry which had been instituted against him by the respondent management on the premise th...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva K.S. Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2845; (2001)IILLJ1044Kant
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner who is an employee of the respondent-bank and who had sought for Voluntary Retirement in a Scheme envisaged by the respondent-Bank, has approached this Court invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the Sub-clause (j) of Clause 10 of the bank's Voluntary Retirement Scheme circulated by the Staff Circular No. 121/2000-2001 (Annexure-B to the Writ Petition) is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable and consequently to quash the communication dated February 27, 2001 by which the bank had advised the petitioner to comply with the requirement of the said clause.2. Sri Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Clause 10(j) which is one of the general conditions required to be complied to accept an application for voluntary retirement and which requires an applicant who is an office bearer/Director of State Bank of Mysore Emp...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Dhondiba Padatare and ors. Vs. Smt. Savithri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC396; ILR2001KAR5221
H. Rangavittalachar, J.1. These two appeals are between the same parties and regarding the same subject matter. Therefore, both of them are disposed of by this common judgment.2. R.S.A. 6/1997 arises from the suit O.S. 99/1967 while R.S. 7/1997 arises from the suit O.S. 55/1967.3. O.S. 99/1967 is filed by Smt. Savithri w/o Dhondiba, against Tukaram, Putalabai, Fulabai and others for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property; while O.S. 55/1967 is filed by Putalabai and Fulabai against Savithri Dhondiba and others for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property having inherited the entire share of their father Hajiba and in the alternative for partition of two-third share in the suit property.4. The parties are related to each other and their relationship is shown by the genealogical tree stated herein below as stated by the parties before the Court below :(Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S. 55/1967 and defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. 99/1967). Dhondi...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Hegde and anr. Vs. M.J. Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)553; [2001]106CompCas541(Kar); ILR2001KAR3295
Mohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard learned counsel on both the sides.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is presented by the petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3, in C. C. No. 13799 of 1997 pending on the file of the court below, praying to quash that criminal proceeding initiated against them on the complaint of the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the N.I. Act' for short).3. The complaint allegations are that : the accused-petitioners happened to be the dealers of the product of M/s. Nicco Corporation Limited. The products of the said Corporation, which were purchased by the complainant and stocked with him as on January 21, 1997, were transferred to the office/godown of the accused, who, in turn, issued the cheque in question bearing No. 656816, dated March 31, 1997, drawn on State Bank of India, Attavara Branch, Man-galore, for Rs. 1,95,139 in the complainant's favour towards the value of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rafat Rehamath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ950; [2001(90)FLR588]; ILR2001KAR2945; (2002)ILLJ38Kant
K.R. Prasada Rao, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurer under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act') against the award dated August 10, 2000 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chamarajanagar, Dist. Chamarajanagar. The amount of compensation awarded to the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants who are widow and children of the deceased employee Syed Arif, as computed under the provisions of the Act, is questioned as excessive on the grounds other than those by which, it, as an insurer could have been entitled to defend the claim for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Amended in the year 1994).2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Shrishaila, regarding admission of this appeal.3. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner has committed an error of jurisdiction in taking into consideration monthly wages of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)309; 2001CriLJ3592
H.N. Narayan, J.1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 18-3-1998, in S.C. 8/96. This appelant was charged and tried for the two offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering his mother.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The accused, P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 are the sons of P.W. 1 and the deceased. P.W. 2 is the daughter of P.W. 1, who was staying in the house of P.W. 1 and the deceased, as her husband was working in Bombay. The accused separated himself from P.W. 1 and was staying in a portion of the same house separately with his wife and two children. P.W. 3 was working at Ichala Karanji while P.W. 8 was working at Bombay. P.W. 8 was sending Rs. 200/-every month to his parents for their maintenance. He was employed in a Factory at Bombay. The accused, a drunkard, was cordial with his parents, but he used to demand a share i...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajeev Moses and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ928
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The only point that is involved in this case is, whether the quantum of compensation at Rs. 1,95,488 for the following injuries:(a) Fracture acetabular of right hip joint,(b) Fracture of inferior pubic ramus,(c) Right sided facial palsy,is just and reasonable and whether it is on the very high side?2. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that even taking the grant in respect of the injuries as such, the grant of loss of income for the person on the date of accident being 48 years, at Rs. 1,69,488 is certainly not a reasonable one. According to him, the claimant was working as Industrial Promotion Officer in 1993 when the accident took place. Subsequently, he continued to be in employment enjoying all the benefits of promotion, increment, salary, etc. and absolutely there was no reduction or loss of income at all. A person who has not suffered any loss of income is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of income and the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »