Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-17-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR698; 2009(2)KarLJ273; 2009(1)AIRKarR21
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Senior Branch Manager in the cadre of Class-I Officer with the first respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation'). The case made out by the petitioner is that he voluntarily retired from service on 07.11.1991 due to some domestic and personal reasons. This petition is filed for the relief to declare that the age of the officer to be 55 years at the time of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19(2)(a) to be ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India and further declare the respondent Corporation to grant commutation amount of the pension and to pay pension from the date of his retirement on 01.11.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts germane for the disposal of this case can be stated in brief as follows:The petitioner, as stated earlier, was a Class-I Officer, Due to some domestic problems, he proposes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-01-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ1448; ILR2008KAR3277; ILR2008(3)Kar3277; 2008(4)KCCR2305; 2008(5)AIRKarR460; AIR2008NOC2694
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of both parties and perused the material on record.3. Due to the accident that occurred on 29.11.2004, the claimant-appellant suffered comminuted segmental fracture of shaft upper 3rd right femur with posterior crucial ligament injury on the right knee. The claimant was inpatient in Mallya Hospital for 11 days and he underwent two surgeries with internal fixations on 30.11.2004 and 10.12.2004. The Tribunal in all has awarded compensation of Rs. 61,000/-.4. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of medical expenses on the ground that the claimant got reimbursement of the money spent by him for medical expenses under a Mediclaim policy. However, only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses.5. The consolidated medical bill issued by Mallya Hospital, Bangalore, found...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR166]; 2008(5)KarLJ172; (2008)IIILLJ875Kant; 2008(5)KLJ172; 2008(2)KCCRSN169; 2008(4)AIRKarR60; 2008LabIC(NOC)928(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1-1-2005 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Hubli, in ESI Application No. 16 of 2004 with a prayer to dismiss the said application insofar as it affected the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent establishment is covered under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and is paying contribution of all the eligible employees. The respondent establishment failed to make payment of contribution in respect of wages paid to the employees for the work done on holidays and on second Saturday and on that basis recovery proceedings were initiated by the appellants, which has been challenged by the respondent before the ESI Court in ESI Application No. 26 of 2000 which came to be allowed by an order dated 24-2-2001. The appellants being aggrieved challenged the said order before this Court, in M.F.A. No. 2242 of 2001 before this Court, which came to be allowed by an order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-09-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2516:2009(4)KCCRSN261:2008(6)AIRKarR402:AIR2009NOC295
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. All these appeals are considered together having regard to common questions of law that are raised.2. (a) In the appeal in M.F.A. No. 1293 of 2006, the appellants are the parents and minor sister of a deceased victim of a motor accident. The father was aged about 48 and the mother was aged 39 at the time of accident. The offending vehicle was a bus, belonging to the respondent No. 2. The deceased was aged about 13 and was studying in the 8th standard. While walking home after school hours, the bus had run over the boy and he died of the injuries. The appellants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). To establish that the child was bright and healthy and was doing well in his studies, certificates issued by the school as regards his grades, extra-curricular and sports activities were produced.(b) The Tribunal has, upon adjudication, proceeded to award a global compen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-2008
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR327]; (2008)IIILLJ945Kant; 2008(5)KLJ320
K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals are filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the judgment and order dated June 10, 2002 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Hubli, in E.S.I. Application Nos. 10 and 11/1994, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent by setting aside the order passed by the appellant under Section 85-B of the ESI Act imposing damages for delayed payment of contribution dated January 20, 1994 and January 21, 1994.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant herein has passed orders under Section 85-B of the ESI Act imposing damages for delayed payment of contribution.In M.F.A. No. 5600/2002 i.e., E.S.I. Application No. 10/1994 the appellant herein passed orders on January 20, 1994 imposing: damages of Rs. 2,278/- for delayed payment of contribution for the period from November 1980 to March 1985, andIn M.F.A. No. 6420/2002 i.e., E.S.I. Application No. 11/1994, orders passed on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-2008
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. In this writ petition filed in public interest, a direction is sought to respondents 1 to 3 to upgrade Model ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, with all modern equipments including I.C. Unit and sufficient supply of necessary drugs and for other consequential reliefs.It is contended by the petitioner that ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore is functioning since 1961; It is located in a convenient place and easily accessible to all the routes of buses; The said hospital was being run by the Government of Kamataka till 2003; thereafter the Hospital is taken by the ESI Corporation on 1.4.2003 as part of Model Hospital Scheme as is done in every State of our Nation.2. The respondents have appeared through their respective advocates.3.1. Heard.3.2. Every reasonable man on the earth wishes to have good health and tries to maintain it till his last breath. There cannot be any doubt that health is wealthier than wealth.3.3. Certain of the famous personalities of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-10-2008
Reported in : (2009)22VST371(Karn); 2009(2)KCCRSN62; 2009(4)AIRKarR436
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Bangalore. The petitioner has a manufacturing unit at pondicherry. The petitioner is registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter for short referred to as the KST Act) and Central Sake Tax Act (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the CST Act'). The petitioner it engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of ATMs and manufacture, supply and trading of their parts and accessories. The petitioner also undertake Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) for maintenance of ATMs. In so far as sale of parts and accessories of ATMs and maintenance of ATMs under the AMCs and construction of ATM rooms by the petitioner's branch in Bangalore are concerned, the petitioner has admitted its liability and filed returns for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and also 2006-07 under the KST and CST Acts. The petitioner has been duty a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ696; ILR2008KAR1553; 2008(2)KCCR1090; 2008(3)AIRKarR341; AIR2008NOC1923; 2008AIHC2566(Kar)
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The Insurance Company in this appeal is challenging the judgment and award dated 12.6.2006 passed in MVC No. 2758/ 2005 by the IX Addl. Judge, Member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-7), Metropolitan Area, Bangalore.2. The brief facts of the case are that, while, the deceased was loading the watermelon fruits on the lorry, slipped and fell down from the lorry on a large stone, sustained grievous injury to the spinal cord and succumbed to the injuries on 4.2.2005 while under treatment. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed claim petition praying for grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,72,200/- with 6% interest thereon under various heads. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the findings relating to negligence and the quantum of compensation.3. Sri. P.B. Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-03-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ430; 2008(4)KCCR2407(DB)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents. The matter is disposed of on merits by consent of both the Counsels at the stage of admission.2. So far as occurrence of the accident on 1-2-2003 at about 4.45 p.m. involving the son of the appellants namely Goutham who was proceeding on the scooter of his father on Magadi Main Road, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the oil tanker had dashed against the said scooter causing the fatal accident, thereby the appellants lost their only son who was aged about 4 years. So far as the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the oil tanker, though the Tribunal has referred to the judgment in the case of Kumari Sneha v. National Insurance Company Limited, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu and Anr. 2000(6) Kar. L.J. 40 : ILR 2000 Kar. 2792, the law laid down in the said case may not be strictly applicable, as it was a case where the child was a pedestrian crossing the road and held that the child in a wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-22-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ452; (2009)IILLJ420Kant; 2009(1)AIRKarR487
K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by the respective appellants, challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 30/6/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, in ESI Application No. 14/2002.2. The appellant/The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, in MFA. No. 6344/2003 has filed this appeal praying to dismiss the ESI Application No. 14/2002 on the file of the ESI Court at Mangalore.3. Whereas, the appellant/The Management of Shagil Precision India, in MFA1391/2004 has filed this appeal praying to refund an amount of Rs. 40,000/- obtained by them under coercion.4. Since both the appeals have been filed challenging the one and the same order passed by one and the same officer in ESI Application 14/2002, both the appeals are taken up together for the sake of convenience in order of avoid repetition of facts and law.5. The case of the appellant in MFA. 1391/2004 is that the appellant/company engaged in manufacture of watch part...
Tag this Judgment!