Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-02-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2836; 1992(3)KarLJ669; (1993)ILLJ709Kant
1. The question of law involved in all these petitions is common and, therefore, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed. 2. The point for consideration in these writ petitions is 'Whether the petitioners who were the employees of the Karnataka Government Insurance Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGID') whose services were subsequently absorbed in one of the nationalised insurance companies which came into existence pursuant to the nationalisation of insurance business in the country are to be retired on attaining the age of sixty years of fifty-eight years ?' 3. In all these petitions the reliefs sought for are common, viz., (i) to quash the orders of retirement of the petitioners at the age of fifty eight years; and (ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of sixty years and not to terminate them at he age of fifty-eight years as is now ordered. 4. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-05-1992
Reported in : I(1993)ACC326; 1993ACJ125; [1994]79CompCas625(Kar); ILR1992KAR2959
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. One Anil Gangadhar Shanbhag died on December 10, 1980, at the age of 27 years as evidenced by the death certificate produced under memo dated July 19, 1981. 2. It appears, during his lifetime, he had taken six life insurance policies, the particulars of which are as follows : Policy No. Date of commencement Sum assured(Rs.)1. 40196022 21-9-1972 15,0002. 40380276 28-12-1975 10,0003. 40380277 28-12-1975 10,0004. 40384001 18-3-1976 10,0005. 50384083 20-3-1976 10,0006. 40469599 10-8-1978 25,0003. After his death, the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased, preferred claims in respect of the amounts due under the aforesaid six policies issued by the respondent, together with the incidental benefits accruing thereon. The said claims were made by the petitioner on January 19, 1981. The respondent-Corporation, in several letters which are marked as annexures B to F, repudiated the claims made by the petitioner on the ground that the insured had suppressed certain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1992
Reported in : ILR1993KAR454
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The Question of Law involved in all these Petitions are common. As such all the Petitions are clubbed together and a common Order is passed.2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these Petitions are as follows:The petitioners in all these Petitions either were or are working as Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians or Librarians in the University of Mysore, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as the University). The University apart from other subjects is also imparting education in Library Science under the auspices of Department of Library Science which has got Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The University has also got a Library Section and its staff consists of Library Assistants, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians and Librarian. The Librarian is the Head of the Section.Petitioners are all officers of Library Section. As on the date of filing the petitions the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 12349 of 1984 and 6968 of 1988 were working as Deputy Lib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-19-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2905; 1992(3)KarLJ685
Mirdhe, J.1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellant who is the plaintiff in the Court below under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. against the order dated 12-7-1991 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 348 of 1990 dismissing I.A.No. 1 filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent and another defendant for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the eldest son of defendant-1 and the respondent is the second son of defendant-1 and the plaintiff's brother. As the respondent has refused to effect partition in the joint family properties since they are standing in his name, the plaintiff has filed the suit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-25-1992
Reported in : 1994ACJ150; [1993]78CompCas96(Kar); ILR1992KAR2520
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner's husband was employed by the first respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the ' company'). The company had entered into an agreement with the second respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ' Corporation ' ). Two sets of agreements were entered into between the company and the Corporation. One in relation to the superannuation scheme and another group insurance scheme. The petitioner's husband died on October 21, 1989. The petitioner applied for payment of the benefits arising out of the two schemes. The company paid the amount due under the superannuation scheme to the petitioner, while the Corporation denied payment in regard to benefits arising under the group insurance scheme. Hence this petition.2. The Corporation has filed a statement of objections stating that the company had to pay the premium as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the group insurance master policy and the premium had no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR712; (1992)IILLJ125Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. Scope and ambit of Sub-clause (c) of Clause (22) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), arise for our consideration and Decision in this Appeal.2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), by its order dated 18-4-1990 made under Section 45-A of the Act, determined the contribution payable by M/s Graphite India Ltd., the principal employer, towards its 14 employees employed in its factory between April 1988 and September 1988, at Rs. 10,805-15 and demanded payment of that amount. The principal employer made an application under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short 'the Court') questioning its liability to pay the contribution to the Corporation as determined in the said order in respect of its 14 employees. The contention advanced by the principal employer to pay contribution respecting its 14 employees was based on its view that a sum of Rs. 10/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1992
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ125Kant
Venkatachala, J. 1. Scope ambit of sub-clause (c) of clause (22) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), arise for our consideration and decision in this appeal. 2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') by its order dated April 18, 1990 made under Section 45-A of the Act, determined the contribution payable by M/s. Graphite India Ltd., the principal employer, towards its 14 employees employed in its factory between April 1988 and September 1988, at Rs. 10,805-15 and demanded payment of that amount. The principal employer made an application under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short' the Court') questioning its liability to pay the contribution to the Corporation as determined in the said order in respect of its 14 employees. The contention advanced by the principal employer to pay contribution to the Corporation as determined in the said order in respect of its 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-06-1992
Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ500
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No. 41/PD-IRD/DA-7, dated 24-4-1990, Annexure-E to the writ petition, in which order the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent-bank to reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits, urging the following facts and legal contentions.2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Farm Representative and he has reported for duty on 1-4-1980 at Staff Training College, Udupi. Initially the appointment was for a period of 2 years on Probation. After successful completion of his Probationary Period, his services were confirmed by the first respondent-bank.3. The 3rd respondent issued the charge-sheet dated 17-9-1985 in exercise of his power conferred under Regulation 6 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Condu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-23-1992
Reported in : [1993]76CompCas119(Kar); ILR1992KAR2207; 1993(2)KarLJ367
N. Venkatachala, J.1. This original side appeal filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is that of the International Coach Builders Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') in liquidation represented by the official liquidator attached to this court, which seeks the setting aside of the company court's order dated October 8, 1991, made on Company Application No. 218 of 1991, in Company Petition No. 131 of 1988, by which the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, a secured creditor of the company, is permitted to stand outside the liquidation proceeding and work out its remedies under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, subject to payment of the workmen's dues as undertaken.2. As the contentions raised before us in support of the appeal require their examination with reference to the facts which led the company court to make the order under appeal, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2659
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 4th January, 1984, passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S.No. 44 of 1972. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,27,142-29 paise with future interest thereon at 10 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of the suit and also for creating a charge of the decretal amount on the plaint B-Schedule properties free from the claim or objections of defendants 13 and 16 to 18. The plaintiff also further prayed for expenses incurred by it in respect of the mortgage security and for fixation of a date by the Court for payment of the decretal amount by the defendants and further in default of payment of the said sum, interest, costs, charges and expenses by a date to be fixed for redemption, to sell the suit schedule properties to recover the amount and, in the event the sale proceeds are found to be inadequate to discharge the decretal liability, to recover the balance pers...
Tag this Judgment!