Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-07-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR3653
ORDERMohan, C.J.All these matters can be dealt with under a common Judgment.2. The facts which are not in controversy may be stated as under:Sugar has been declared as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1967. The Union Government has been regulating the production and distribution of sugar. During the year 1974-75 the Union Government was pursuing a policy popularly known as partial control under which part of the sugar produced by the manufacturers of sugar was required to be sold to the Union Government. The price was to be determined by the Union Government in accordance with the principles enumerated in Section 3(3)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act. When the price control orders were challenged by the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 3636 of 1975, interim stay was ordered permitting the petitioner-Company to collect a price which was higher than the price determined under the Levy Sugar Price Fixation Order. The Writ Petition came to be heard along with many ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-28-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR4364
ORDERS. Mohan, C.J. 1. The following three questions have been referred by the Division Bench for our opinion:-'(1) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case where the Corporation seeks to recover contributions for a period prior to the issuance of the notice calling upon the employer to register its institution and cover its employees with effect from an anterior date?(2) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case where the principal employer has failed to cover his employees and the Corporation had not extended any benefits or rendered any service to the employees for the period prior to the issuance of the notice calling upon the employer to cover its employees?(3) Whether the E.S.I. Corporation can demand payment of contribution without notifying the facilities available for the employees to the employer?' 2. The appellant -- Karnataka Food Packers -- has preferred this appeal against the order dated 29-5-1982 passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-10-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1993
K.A. Swami, J.1. All these Writ Appeals except W.A.No. 262/1990 are preferred against the order dated 13-7-1989 passed in W.P.Nos. 3174/1989 c/w W.P.Nos. 15922, 10413 and 10414, 11712, 5862, 12216/1988; 2036/1989, 8786, 16676/1988, 444, 742, 1962, 8562, 9386, 10173, 10370, 3439, 9616, 9498, 5904, 10697, 10933, 11235, 10543 and 10862/1989. Writ Appeal No. 262/1990 is also connected with the aforesaid Writ Appeals even though it is preferred against the order dated 22-1-1990 passed in W.P. No. 1324/1990 because it also relates to the same subject-matter. Hence the above Appeal is heard along with the other Writ Appeals.2. In all the above Writ Petitions, the subject matter was as to whether the Scheme evolved by the State Government for the purpose of distribution of foodgrains through fair price shops was under the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the ORDER issued thereunder viz., Karnataka Essential Commodities...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-11-1990
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR590]; ILR1990KAR654; 1990(1)KarLJ236; (1991)ILLJ150Kant
Mohan, C.J.1. The facts leading to the Writ Appeal are as follows : N. S. Giri, respondent-1 herein, joined the services of appellant-1 Municipality as a Health Assistant in the year 1950. He was promoted as a Sanitary Inspector in the year 1962. There was a further promotion as a Selection Grade Sanitary Inspector on a substantive basis with effect from 1st June, 1967. Thereafter, the post was re-designated as Assistant Health Officer. 2. Originally the Mangalore City Municipality was constituted under the provisions of the then Madras District Municipalities Act (the Act, for short). As far as the service conditions and the age of retirement of Health Officers of the Health Department are concerned, they were governed by the Madras Public Health Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Under the said Rules, the retirement age of the servants of the Public Health Department was 60 years in some cases and in some other cases it was 58 years. There was also a provision in the said Rules for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-07-1990
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR611]; ILR1991KAR876
ORDERRama Jois, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner, who is a Beedi factory, has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the notice issued by the Regional Office of the Employees State Insurance, calling upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and the Schemes and Regulations framed thereunder.2. The material averments in the Writ Petition are these:- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of beedies, which manufactures about 3.5 lakh beedies every day. Out of this 1.25 to 1.5 lakh beedies are being manufactured within the factory premises and the rest of the beedies are being manufactured through contractors. For the benefit of the workers employed in the beedi Industries, the Parliament has enacted Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966; Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1976. Rules have also been framed under these enactments. Under the provisions of the aforesaid enactm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-1990
Reported in : [1993]77CompCas266(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. In these appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short), against a common award on three claim petitions presented under section 110A of the Act, read with rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 ('the Rules' for short), the following important questions of law arise for consideration :2. In the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles :(A) Whether or not the owners of all such vehicles are several tortfeasors in that each owner is a separate tortfeasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct and whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ? (B) Whether section 110B of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-08-1990
Reported in : 1990(3)KarLJ363; (1999)IIILLJ246Kant
Ramachadriah, J.1. Petitioner was the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 were accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in C.S. No. 2010/1987 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore City, (for short 'the Special Court') C.C. No. 2010/1987 arose out of a private complaint filed by the petitioner Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') on November 30, 1987 alleging that the accused have violated the provisions of Sections 44 and 45(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') for which they are liable to be prosecuted for Commission of an offence under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 5 of the Act for non-production of the documents mentioned against Sl. Nos. 1 to 8 of paragraph 7(b) of the complaint for scrutiny by the Inspector of the Corporation as called upon in the notices dated January 7, 1987, May 7, 1987 and August 20, 1987 issued to the accused after he vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-19-1990
Reported in : II(1990)ACC572; 1991ACJ272; AIR1991Kant189; ILR1990KAR3243
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is an appeal by the General Manager of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation as well as the Deputy General Manager of the internal Insurance Fund of the said Corporation. They were respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, in M.V.C. No. 831/88.2. Respondents 1 to 8 before us were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Claimants 7 and 8 are mother and brother of the deceased who, it is alleged in the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, died as a consequence of rash and negligent driving of a bus owned by the first appellant-Corporation on 28-7-1988 at about 9-30 a.m. on Poona-Bombay Road (National Highway No. 4), near Shetti Galli Cross, in Belgaum town. It is further alleged by the claimants-respondents that the deceased Kashimsab Mulla was earning Rs. 1.200/-per month. They claimed a total of Rs, 4,75,000/-as compensation on account of the death caused by the accide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-1990
Reported in : 1991ACJ403; ILR1990KAR3181
Rama Jois, J1. In these appeals presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 ('the Act' for short), against a common award on three claim petitions presented under Section 110-A of the Act read with Rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 ('the Rules' for short) the following important questions of law arise for consideration:In the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles:(A) Whether or not the owners of all such vehicles are several tort feasors, in that each of the owner is a separate tort feasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct? and whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal?(3) Whether Section 110-3 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-30-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR3505
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1 .In this petition under Article 228 of the of the Constitution of India, Majalise Muntasima Khudad, Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore, has sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to hold an enquiry into the gas tragedy that occurred at Tippunagar, Bangalore, on 5-2-1988 and submit a report recommending compensation to be paid to the victims. The petitioner has also sought for Issue of a direction to respondents-2 to 4 to give compensation to all the victims and their kith and kin as may be recommended by the enquiring authority and for such other Writs or direction as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.2. Thus this is a public interest litigation filed by the aforesaid Association to secure relief to the members of the families of the deceased and also to the injured in the gas tragedy which took place on 5-2-1988 at Tippunagar in Chamarajapet.3. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Karnataka. Respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!