Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant293; AIR1969Mys293
ORDER1. The question for decision in C.R.P. 909 of 1965 is whether the respondent (defendant) is an agriculturist's Relief Act.2. The petitioner before this Court was the plaintiff in O. S. 593/63 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga. The plaintiff brought the suit against defendant (respondent) on two pronotes for Rs. 390 dated 15-7-1957. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant was an agriculturist both at the time when the suit pronotes were executed and also at the time the suit was instituted.It may be mentioned that the suit was instituted on 20th September 1963. The plaintiff relied on the extended period of limitation given by S. 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Munsiff held that the defendant was no an agriculturist as per the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the benefit of the extended period of limitation under Section 24 of the said Act and dismissed the suit. This revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ71
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29-6-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, Ramdurg, allowing I.A. III moved by the plaintiff in Original Suit No, 234 of 1990. By the amendment, the plaintiff sought to remove a technical defect in the plaint i.e., lack of averment which is required to be made under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act read with explanation thereof namely there was no specific averment in expressed terms that the plaintiff is and has always been ready to perform his part of contract. This allegation being wanted and as it was not there in expressed terms, the plaintiff moved the application for amendment and the Court below after considering the matter, allowed the amendment. So defendants felt aggrieved and have come up in revision.2. It has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below should not have allowed the amendment as on the date if it would have been filed in amended form,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1983KAR157; 1983(1)KarLJ439; (1983)IILLJ108Kant
Malimath, J. 1. This appeal is by the Workmen represented by the General Secretary, Karnataka Provident Fund Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workmen') challenging the order made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18987 of 1980. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows : The Government of Karnataka has made an order under S. 10, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referring certain disputes between the Provident Fund Organisation in the Karnataka Region represented by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management') the appellant-workmen, to the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in A.I.D. No. 3 of 1979. On behalf of the Management, it was contended before the Tribunal that the second party - Management (respondent 2 in this appeal) is not an industry as defined in S. 2(j) of the Act. It was further contended that the order of reference is with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR446]; ILR1995KAR1064; 1995(2)KarLJ395
1. In this petition the petitioner calls in question the correctness of an order dated September 16, 1993. Passed by the respondent under section 7-A of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the said order, the petitioner was held to be 'trading and commercial establishment' within the meaning of the said term as appearing in the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. The facts are few and may, therefore, be stated first.2. The petitioner company is a subsidiary of Canara Bank and has been incorporated with the object of carrying on business in equipment leasing and merchant banking. Besides other objects set out in its memorandum and articles of association. It claims to have employed nearly 120 persons in connections with its business for whose benefit it has framed a provident fund scheme, which is said to have been duly approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR1170]; ILR2006KAR4015
1. All these appeals are filed against the common order dated 12.9.2000 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Court') in ESI Application No. 52/1998 and 28/1998. In the said applications, the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSSIDC' for short) was the applicant and the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) was the respondent. The ESI application No. 28/98 relates to claim of interest and ESI Application No. 52/1998 relates to the claim of damages by the ESI Corporation. The ESI Court by its order dated 12.9.2000 has limited the claim of interest only to the periods from 7.2.1997 to 25.10.1997 and damages at 25% for the said period. The ESI Corporation being aggrieved by the limiting of the interest has preferred MFA No. 272/01 and in so far as reducing the damages has filed MFA No. 270/01. The KSSIDC being aggrieved in so far as granting interest even for the said period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ452; (2009)IILLJ420Kant; 2009(1)AIRKarR487
K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by the respective appellants, challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 30/6/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, in ESI Application No. 14/2002.2. The appellant/The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, in MFA. No. 6344/2003 has filed this appeal praying to dismiss the ESI Application No. 14/2002 on the file of the ESI Court at Mangalore.3. Whereas, the appellant/The Management of Shagil Precision India, in MFA1391/2004 has filed this appeal praying to refund an amount of Rs. 40,000/- obtained by them under coercion.4. Since both the appeals have been filed challenging the one and the same order passed by one and the same officer in ESI Application 14/2002, both the appeals are taken up together for the sake of convenience in order of avoid repetition of facts and law.5. The case of the appellant in MFA. 1391/2004 is that the appellant/company engaged in manufacture of watch part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR327]; (2008)IIILLJ945Kant; 2008(5)KLJ320
K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals are filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the judgment and order dated June 10, 2002 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Hubli, in E.S.I. Application Nos. 10 and 11/1994, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent by setting aside the order passed by the appellant under Section 85-B of the ESI Act imposing damages for delayed payment of contribution dated January 20, 1994 and January 21, 1994.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant herein has passed orders under Section 85-B of the ESI Act imposing damages for delayed payment of contribution.In M.F.A. No. 5600/2002 i.e., E.S.I. Application No. 10/1994 the appellant herein passed orders on January 20, 1994 imposing: damages of Rs. 2,278/- for delayed payment of contribution for the period from November 1980 to March 1985, andIn M.F.A. No. 6420/2002 i.e., E.S.I. Application No. 11/1994, orders passed on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3463; 2004(5)KarLJ161
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The appellant, namely, Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the generation and supply of power in the State of Karnataka. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, for short, The 'KPTCL', the first respondent herein, is a Company established under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to the enactment of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, for short, 'the Act' whereunder the Karnataka Electricity Board, the KEB, for short, was trifurcated into three Companies. Respondent No. 2 is Government of Karnataka (GOK).2. Pursuant to the Notifications and the subsequent clarifications issued by the Government of India in March 1992 setting out the norms for determining the tariff payable to the generating Companies, by an order dated 7th March, 1994, approval was granted by GOK to the appellant for setting up a power project of 300 MW and selling power directly to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR205; 1993(4)KarLJ584
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Though there are two petitioners, the first petitioner is the actual petitioner and therefore hereafter the reference will be only to the said petitioner unless the context requires otherwise.2. The decision of the second respondent-Board dated 29.7.1993 is under challenge. By that decision the Board conveyed to the petitioner that rebate in demand charges sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered as the same is not covered in the Agreement executed by the petitioner. The second subject referred in the said decision is not necessary to be stated since there is no challenge to that aspect. The State of Karnataka decided to invite private participation in the generation of electrical energy in the State, by setting up mini hydel plants in the private sector. The petitioner was the first one to venture into setting up a mini hydel plant. An Agreement was entered into between the State Government and the petitioner on 3.2.1986 (Annexure-A) in this rega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3851
ORDERDattu, J. 1. Petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the services of the respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('Corporation' for short) on 31.5.1999. Since the respondent Corporation did not immediately settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he was making repeated representations and since those representations did not yield any results, petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 22.5.2000. Since he did not get any reply even to the said notice and since the respondent Corporation had not settled the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he was approached this Court inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent Corporation to pay him the full pension and pensionary benefits with 18% interest from the date it became payable till the actual date of payment. 2. With the permission of the Court, petitioner has amended the prayer portion of the Writ Petition, by questioning the correctness or ot...
Tag this Judgment!