Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(1)KarLJ106; ILR2007(4)Kar3956; 2007(4)KCCRSN245; 2007(6)AIRKarR33(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.1. The appellant, had filed the writ petition seeking the following prayers: To,(a) declare Regulation 43 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (General Conduct of Proceedings) Regulations 2000, ('Regulations' for short), as ultra vires and unenforceable;(b) direct the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission not to give effect to or apply Regulation 43 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (General Conduct of Proceedings) Regulation 2000;(c) to quash the letter of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 15.12.2000, rejecting Appeal No. 32/2000 and for directing the 'Commission' to entertain the said Appeal and decide the same on merits.2. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single judge, this writ appeal has been filed, to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition.3. We have heard Sri S. Naganand, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992(65)ELT816(Kar); 1992(2)KarLJ273; (1999)IIILLJ395Kant
1. Having regard to the nature of the points arising for our decision in this appeal, we heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties on the merits of this appeal and are proceeding to decide the appeal at the stage of admission itself.2. This is an appeal filed by the Employees' Union of the employees employed in the Office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Limited, Bangalore (for short 'the Employees' Union), under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'), against the order dated January 6, 1991 made by the Employees' State Insurance Court (for short 'the Insurance Court') rejecting their ESI Application No. 3/1985 in which they had sought for a declaration that no contribution was liable to be paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the ESI Corporation') under the ESI Act for the employees employed in the Office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Ltd., at Bangalore (for short 'the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(1)KarLJ349; (2000)ILLJ1204Kant
ORDER1. The respondent herein questioned the order passed by the ESI Corporation in ESI Application No. 21 of 1994 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court at Hubli under Section 75 of the Act, wherein among other contentions, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the ESI Corporation under Section 85B of the Act is not proper and legal as the Regional Director had no power to pass the order in question. The Court after hearing both the parties and following the judgment in Hindustan Monark (Private) Limited v Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Another, held that the Regional Director could not pass the order under Section 85B of the ESI Act. Therefore, on that only point the application was allowed and the order passed by the respondent was set aside. Being aggrieved by that order, the Corporation has preferred this appeal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The substantial questi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. This miscellaneous first appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arises from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1990, delivered by Sri Vittal Sheregar, Judge, the Employees' Insurance Court. Hubli, whereby the Employees' Insurance Court dismissed the applicant-appellant's application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 2. The facts of the case in brief are, that the appellant which is a private limited company under the Companies Act has been engaged in the manufacture of steel safes and furniture. This factory of the applicant-appellant has been situated at Hubli. As per the admitted facts, the applicant's company is covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and Scheme thereunder and in which more than hundred workers and employees have been employed and have been working. According to the appellant-applicant's case, it has been remitting the contributions regularly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1990)ACC127; [1989(59)FLR778]; ILR1989KAR2001; 1989(2)KarLJ227; (1990)IILLJ195Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these two appeals, presented under sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration : '(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-Employees' State Insurance Corporation, was justified in imposing damages of fifty per cent., sixty per cent., and hundred per cent, of the amount of contribution required to be remitted by the appellant to the Corporation, in respect of which there was some delay by the appellant in remitting the same to the Corporation (2) Whether the first respondent-Employees' State Insurance Corporation, was justified in treating the special allowance, midday meal allowance and overtime wages as part of 'wages' for the purpose of computing the contribution payable under the provisions of the act and the Scheme framed thereunder ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : By an order dated 12th Sept...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(2)KarLJ81; (2007)2LLJ1024Kant
V. Jagannathah, J.1. M/s Summer Palace Resorts situated at Ullal, Mangalore, was covered under the ESI scheme from 1.1.1999 based on Form No. 01 submitted by the establishment and as the said Form No. 01 indicated the total number of employees working in the establishment was eleven, the ESI Corporation (appellant herein) issued a Form C-II notice dated 19.2.1999, regarding coverage from 1.1.1999 and this was followed by another notice C-18 dated 20.12.2000, demanding Rs. 25,063/- paid towards security service and the last of the notices D-18 was issued on 24.1.2002, demanding damages under Section 85(b) of the Employees Stats insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent-Hotel challenged the said notices before the ESI Court contending that the respondent is not coverable under the Act as the number of employees did not exceed more than seven at any point of time. It was also contended before the ESI Court that the security personnel numbering four were not the employees o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1979Kant146; 1979(1)KarLJ356
Venkataramiah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12175 of 1977 allowing the said petition and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition not to enforce the notification dated 18-2-1976 issued by the State Government under S. 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The petitioner in the writ petition is a partner of a restaurant situate at Dharwar in the State of Karnataka. By the notification referred to above which was impugned in the writ petition the State Government extended the provisions of the Act to restaurants and hotels in Dharwar and some places in the State of Karnataka. The Act was not however extended to other hotels and restaurants situated in other parts of the State even though the Act had been extended to those parts by notifications issued from time to time under S. 1(3) of the Act. The petitioner contended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(1)KarLJ656; 2008(1)KCCRSN53; 2008(2)AIRKarR1
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a generator of electric energy, which according to the writ petitioner, had been agreed to be supplied to the first respondent Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd [KPTCL] under an agreement dated 8-10-1999.2. While the agreement did work well between the petitioner and the Karnataka Electricity Board [KEB], with which the agreement had been entered into and even with its successor - KPTCL -, it appears, certain legislation particularly the enactment of the Karnataka Electricity Reform Act, 1999 [for short, the Act] which was deemed to have been come into effect from 1-6-1999, intervened and had certain adverse effect on the petitioner.3. It is in the wake of the agreement being not implemented or acted upon by the KPTCL and subsequent development being that KPTCL itself having been bifurcated into a transmission company retaining its original name and a distributor company, which has been added as fourth respondent, not continui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant151; [1998]94CompCas123(Kar); 1997(3)KarLJ61
H.N. Narayan, J.1. The petitioner has filed a petition under sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, requesting the learned District Judge to pass a personal decree against the respondents with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 11,75,164. The office of the learned District Judge, Bellary, has raised an objection that in view of the general circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka in Circular No. 1 of 1995, dated February 18, 1995, the application is liable to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, and placed the matter before the learned District Judge for suitable orders to return the papers for presentation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The learned District Judge, upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the Debt Recovery Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, has got jurisdiction as the amount sought to be recovered in the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant46; I(2004)BC49; ILR2003KAR3344; [2004]52SCL370(Kar)
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. These cases involving a common question of law are heard together by consent. The facts of each of these cases are given below briefly.Re: W.P. Nos. 37209 & 37907 /2000:1.1) An industrial concern by name A.P. Rocks Pvt. Ltd. borrowed certain amount from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the first Respondent ('KSFC' for short). The petitioners in these two petitions viz., N. Narasimhaiah and K. Rajan offered their respective properties bearing No. 59 (old No. 55), Annammadevi Temple Extension, Division No. 22, Subedar Chatram Road, Bangalore and House No. 49, House list khata No. 100A, Mannarayana Palya, Chalanayakanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as collateral security in favour of KSFC, as Guarantors for repayment of the amounts advanced to A.P. Rocks Private Ltd. As the borrower committed default, KSFC passed an order dated 20.1.2000 under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'SFC Act') directing that ...
Tag this Judgment!