Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-1973
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
Decided on : Nov-22-1973
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ262Kant
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by a Division Bench under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961:(1) Whether the regulations framed by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation regulating the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the chief executive officer, or general manager and the chief accounts officer under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, have statutory force? and(2) Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, to obey the regulations framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950?2. This writ petition had come up in the first instance before Malimath, J., who referred it to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Mysore High Court Act, as his Lordship noticed conflicting decisions of this Court on the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-28-1973
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas534(Kar); ILR1973KAR1292; (1973)2MysLJ117
Venkataswami, J. 1. This appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1967 on the file of the Civil Judge, Udipi, is by the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'L.I.C.'). The suit which had been filed by the Canara Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'trustee') as a trustee under five insurance policies, the assured sums thereunder aggregating to Rs. 1,30,000, and the heirs of the deceased-assured, was decreed for a sum of rupees 1,65,546, with current and future interest thereon at the rate of 7 1/2% per annum. 2. The relevant facts leading up to the appeal, briefly, are as follows : One V. S. R. Sriranga Shetty, a merchant of Mercara, took out five insurance policies with the appellant. The first four policies were for a sum of Rs. 25,000 each and the last one for Rs. 30,000. On the date of submission of his proposals in regard to the first two policies, the assured was 48 years old. All these policies were taken out and issued between the date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-14-1973
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ396Kant
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called ''the Act', by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore, against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Harihar at Bangalore dated 19-2-1973 made in ESIA-3 of 72, allowing the application of the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. respondent (hereinafter called 'the company') and declaring that the incentive payments made by the company to its employees under the incentive scheme are not 'wages' as defined under the Act and that ESI contributions are not to be levied on such payments.2. ESI Scheme was applied to the different units of the company in different years. The company has been collecting the contributions from its employees on the wages payable under the terms of employment and crediting the same to the ESI Corporation together with the employer's contribution. Disputes arose between the Corporation and the company on the com...
Tag this Judgment!