Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-27-1982
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
Decided on : Oct-22-1982
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas668(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1980, passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2530 of 1980. 2. The appeal raises some questions of considerable importance as to the constraint on banking institutions to charge interest on loans/advances/overdrafts or any other financial accommodation and the power of courts to examine the rigour of such transaction and give relief to the debtor by calling into aid the usury enactments. 3. The facts, in brief, are these : One D. S. Gowda was allotted a site No. 132/4 at Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, by the Bangalore Development Authority. He wanted to construct some residential flats in that site. He approached M/s. Corporation Bank', readily acceded to his request and gave advance and overdraft facilities. D. S. Gowda took the loan and commenced construction. The loan sectioned was perhaps found insufficient. So, he could neither finish the building nor repay...
Tag this Judgment!