Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR925]; 2005(6)KarLJ25; (2006)ILLJ674Kant
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dated 11-2-2000 passed in ESI Application No. 1 of 1995 by the Judge, ESI Court, Bangalore dismissing the application filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of silk sarees and textiles. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the ESI Court dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 75 of the Act. It was the appellant's case that the appellant's unit M/s. Srinidhi Silks and Textiles, M/s. Srinidhi Fashions dealing in readymade clothes and M/s. Srinidhi Saree Sadan dealing in sarees, yet another partnership firm, are three independent units and do not have connection with each other, there is no transferability of employees from one establishment to another and that there is no unity of accounts, etc., and hence, it was not per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas86(Kar)
Bopanna, J. 1. In all these applications, a common question of law relating to the power of the company court for making appropriate orders in regard to the priorities of the various claimants under the provisions of section 446 read with section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act'), arises. 2. In Company Application NO. 610 of 1988, filed under section 537 of the Act, the applicant is the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (in short, 'the KSFC'), and it has sought for an order by this court directing the release of the assets of the company 9in liquidation) by the official liquidator to KSFC and for leave and permission to sell the said assets under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the SFC Act'). The ground for making this application is that the KSFC has to recover a large sum of money from the respondent-company (in liquidation) and these sums are covered by the security of the assets of the respondent-company(in liquidation )...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1974)ILLJ153Kant; (1973)2MysLJ76
Acts/Rules/Orders: Electricity Supply Act, 1948; Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952; Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 14(3), 19, 34 and 45(2); Companies Act; Life Insurance Corporation Act - Section 11(2); Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947; Land Acquisition Act; General Clauses Act - Section 3; Mysore Financial Code, 1958 - Rule 2; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1), 31, 46, 226, 298, 311(2) and 367OPINIONNarayana Pai, C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is : 'Whether the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution ?'. The referring Bench observes that the orders of this Court in two writ petitions, viz., V. H. Gokhale v. MSRTC, W.P. 2113/67, and Ramachandriah v. General Manager, MSRTC, W.P. 1258/67, which take the view that the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation cannot be regarded as a State for purposes of Art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]90CompCas496(Kar)
Venkataraman, J. 1. This petition is filed by accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 in C.C. No. 189 of 1990 on the file of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Metropolitan Areas and District Court of Bangalore, under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings initiated against them on the complaint of the respondent, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, for offences under section 85(a) and (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act', for short). 2. The respondent in the complaint, a copy of which is produced at annexure 'D', has alleged that K.R. Mills at Mysore is a 'factory' as defined under section 2(12) of the Act, that the eight accused persons including the present petitioners are the principal employers of the said factory as defined in section 2(17) of the Act, that under section 40(1) of the Act read with regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, every principal employer of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant71; AIR1965Mys71; ILR1964KAR555
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The material facts are these: The respondent before us is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on a tailoring business. The appellant which is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the provisions of Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 called upon the respondent to pay contribution under Section 40(1) of the Act to the fund to be created under its provisions. The respondent was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- for the period between July 31, 1960 and January 28, 1961 on what is described as an ad hoc basis. The only ground on which this demand was resisted by the respondent was that the respondent was not a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. Thereupon the appellant Corporation made an application under Section 75(2) of the Act to the Employees' Insurance Court for a direction that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR414]; ILR2000KAR2370; 2000(2)KarLJ369; (2000)IILLJ58Kant
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 arises from the judgment and order dated 25th July, 1998 delivered by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bangalore, in ESI Application No. 46 of 1989 moved under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act), whereby the ESI Court has modified the order of the Deputy Regional Director, dated 20-12-1988 passed under Section 75-A of the Act and has directed the applicant-appellant to pay contribution of Rs. 1,05,545-61 ps. instead of Rs. 1,10,410-30 ps. as ordered by the Deputy Regional Director with interest as per law and subject to the adjustment of the amount already paid. 2. The appellant-applicant admittedly as per the facts narrated in the memorandum of appeal is engaged in the manufacture of agarbathi and is covered by the ESI Act. According to the appellant-applicant, it has always been regularly paying ESI contribution. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR1053]; (2005)IIILLJ800Kant
Anand Byrareddy, J.In the present appeal the following substantial questions of law are raised:i) Whether the ESI Corporation, Bangalore (Karanataka) has jurisdiction to claim contributions in respect of construction of property situated in Nallur Village, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, which is not a notified area under the ESI Act and beyond its coverage/applicability?ii) Whether the employees engaged by the second respondent Batra Developers for the purpose of construction of building for the purpose of Guest House of the appellant will fall under the definition of 'employee' under Section 9 of the ESI Act? andiii) Whether the judgment of the Lower Court is opposed to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Electricity Board v. Subash Chandra Bose reported in : (1992)ILLJ475SC .2. The facts briefly stated, as would be relevant for consideration of this appeal, are as follows:The appellant-company which has several factories as well as service centres throughout India, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Learned Single Judge having felt that the dictum laid down in the case of Chinnavenkatesh R.T. v. Senior RTO, Mysore and Anr. : 1975 (2) KLJ 385 requires reconsideration, referred these writ petitions to the Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.2. In the case of Chinnavenkatesh (Supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals filed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Taxation Act' for short) r/w. Rule 31 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Taxation Rules' for short).3. Thus, the question to be considered by the Division Bench isWhether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable for the purpose of condoning the delay in preferring the appeal filed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 r/w. Rule 31 of the Karnataka Motor Vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(2)ALT(Cri)431; ILR1999KAR3697; 1999(5)KarLJ660
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (the original complainant) challenging the order of discharge dated 4-8-1998 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 70 of 1998.2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondents herein for the contravention of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the 'Act') punishable, under Section 85(a) of the Act. After filing of the complaint the parties were heard on the charges. The Special Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Aravinda Parimala Works, Mysore and Others v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Binnypet, Bangalore, held that Section 85(a) of the Act is applicable to a ease where there is non-payment of the total contribution and it is not applicable where part payment of the contribution is made by the accused. Accordingly, by the impugned order, exercising ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR527]; 2007(3)KarLJ214; (2007)IIILLJ1045Kant
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The order passed by the appellant-Corporation under Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act' for short) demanding damages to the tune of Rs. 27,124/- for the wage period from 27.1.1985 to 30.11.1986 prompted the respondent herein to move the E.S.I. Court for setting aside the said order mainly on the ground that the respondent, had deposited excess amount with the Corporation and, therefore, the Corporation could not have levied the damages as above. The E.S.I. Court accepted the said argument addressed on behalf of the respondent, and allowed the application filed by the respondent and it is the said order of the E.S.I. Court, that is questioned in this appeal by the Corporation.2. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parries.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the order of the E.S.I. Court, is erroneous inasmuch as the court below had failed to take note of the fact that the dama...
Tag this Judgment!