Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant13; AIR1970Mys13; (1969)1MysLJ244
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J.1. These appeals brought on behalf of the Union of India and the Post Master General, Madras Circle (Defendants Nos. 1 and 2) are directed against the judgment and decrees of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore in Original Suits Nos. 37 and 38 of 1959. Original Suit No. 37 of 1959 was a suit brought by Respondents in Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 1962 for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and Original Suit No. 38 of 1959 was a suit brought by the Respondent in Regular First Appeal No. 152 of 1962 for damages for personal injuries. 2. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 37 of 1959 are the parents of Subhas Alva, hereinafter called Subhas, who died in the accident. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 38 of 1959 is Jeevaraj Alva, herein--after called Jeevaraj and he is the elder brother of the said Subhas. In July 1958 Subhas and Jeevaraj were students in the Arya Vidya Shala, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore City. The Railway Mail Service office ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant64; AIR1969Mys64; (1968)2MysLJ155
Kalagate, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit, in so far as it relates to the recovery of possession of the suit properties as the adopted son of one Krishnaji, has been dismissed by the trial court, Hence the appeal.2. Plaintiff, by his plaint, dated 7th March 1958, alleged that he was adopted by Krishnabai (defendant 1), the widow of Krishnaji, on the 26th June 1947. Krishnaji's father Swami Rao had two brother viz., Venkata Rao and Bheema Rao. Venkata Rao died in 1870; prior to his death he had to become separated from his two brothers Swami Rao and Bheema Rao, and got certain properties. But, after his death, his widow Jeevubaibai, who died in 1906, released the properties obtained by her husband on partition in favour of Krishnaji and two sons of Bheema Rao. Thereafter there was a partition between Krishnaji (his adoptive father) and the two sons of Bheema Rao, and in that partition, the suit properties came to the share of Krishnaji. Krishnaji died in the year 1900 and it w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ97Kant; (1968)1MysLJ24
ORDERChandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioners are owners of residential hotels and eating-houses. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, they have challenged the validity of the notification dated 1 June, 1967 (published in the Mysore Gazette dated 8 June, 1967) issued by the Government of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages for different classes for employees in residential hotels and eating-houses. 2. At the outset, it is useful to narrate briefly the history of the minimum-wage legislation and of fixation of minimum wages in hotel industry. 3. The Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention was held at Geneva in the year 1928. The resolutions of that convention are embodied in Arts. 223 to 228 of the International Labour Code. The object of these resolutions, as stated in Art. 224, was to fix minimum wages in industries 'in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreements or otherwise, and wages ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant156; AIR1968Mys156
Chandrashekher, J. (1) The petitioners are owners of residential hotels and eating houses. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution they have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 1-6-1967 (Published in Mysore Gazette dated 8-6-1967) issued by the Govt. of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages for different classes of employees in residential hotels and eating houses.(2) At the outset, it is useful to narrate briefly the history of the minimum wage legislation and of fixation of minimum wages in hotel industry.(3) The Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention was held at Geneva in the year (1928). The resolutions of that Convention are embodied in Articles 223 to 228 of the International Labour Code. The object of these resolutions, as stated in Article 224 was to fix minimum wages in industries 'in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulations of wages by collective agreements or otherwise, and wages are excepti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ106Kant
Per Bhimayya, J. 1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore, in Application No. 16 of 1964 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under S. 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, to be hereinafter called the Act, for the recovery of employees' contribution payable by the respondent-factory. 2. The application was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its manager against the respondent-factory to recover a sum of Rs. 8,893 for the period commencing from 27 July 1958 to 31 January, 1964, being the employees' contribution payable by the principal employer, viz., respondent-factory, for the benefits of the workers employed by the immediate employers. 3. The respondent is a partnership-firm constituted by two brothers by name Laxmanamurthi and Srinivasamurthi. The respondent-factory manufactures and exports polished granite memorial stones. The factory is situate at the south-end area, Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant196; AIR1967Mys196; [1967(14)FLR322]; (1967)1MysLJ318
Bhimiah, J.1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore, in Application No. 16 of 1964 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948. to be hereinafter called the 'Act', for the recovery of employees' contribution payable by the respondent-factory2. The application was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Manager against the respondent-factory to recover a sum of Rs. 8,893 for the period commencing from 27-7 1958 to 31-1-1964, being the employees' contribution payable by theprincipal employer, viz., respondent-factory, for the benefit of the workers employed by the Immediate employers.3. The respondent is a partnership firm constituted by two brothers by name Laxmanamurthy and Srinivasamurthy. The respondent-factory manufactures and exports polished granite memorial stones. The factory is situate at the South End area, Basavangudi, Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1966(12)FLR413]; (1967)ILLJ49Kant; (1966)1MysLJ465
ORDERPer Hedge, J. 1. The petitioner joined the Machine Tools Factory, a concern under the management of the Government of India, in 1952 as a clerk. In 1953, 'Hindustan Machine Tools, Ltd.' to be hereinafter referred to as the company was registered as a private limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The Government of India made over the Machine Tools Factory to the company. Originally, there were seven shareholders in the company. They were : (i) President of India, (ii) Secretary, Ministry of Production, (iii) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Production, (iv) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (v) Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Production, (vi) Under Secretary, Ministry of Production, and (vii) Oerlikon Machine Tools Works, Buchrle & Co., Zurich (Switzerland). 2. We understand that the shares of Buchrle & Co. had been purchased by the President of India. At present, all the shares of the company are held in the name of the President of India and some of the Secretaries ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant346; AIR1966Mys346; (1966)2MysLJ378
1. On May 11, 1961, at about 5.25 P.M. on a road in Mangalore known as the Kankanady Road, Sylvester Machado, a little boy aged 8 years who was attempting to cross the road was caught underneath the wheels of a lorry and killed. That lorry belonged to defendant 1 and was driven by defendant 2. The two parents of Sylvester instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mangalore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7705 as damages from defendants 1 and 2 and also from defendant 3, an insurer, with whom defendant 1 had insured his motor vehicle against third party risks. The Subordinate Judge awarded to plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation and from that decree the insurer appeals.(2) The appellant complaints that no sum in excess of Rs. 1,000 could have been awarded as damages to the plaintiffs and Mr. Anantharamaiah appearing for the appellant contends that the sum of Rs. 6000 awarded is far too excessive, and that, the Subordinate Judge determined the compensation by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1965(11)FLR247]; (1966)ILLJ826Kant; (1965)2MysLJ442
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 7 March, 1961 Usman Khan who is the respondent before us sustained injuries when he was driving a truck belonging to the Canara Public Conveyance Company, Ltd., which had employed him. It is undisputed that on account of a mechanical defect in the truck, one of its springs broke and caused the accident in which Usman Khan was involved. He was treated for his injuries in the Government Hospital at Chickmagalur between 7 and 11 March, 1961 when he was discharged. Thereafter he went to a medical practitioner in Puttur in the district of South Kanara and was under his treatment until 11 May, 1961. But eventually, notwithstanding all this treatment to which he was subjected, he lost completely the use of his right hand. It is in evidence that in consequence of the accident the third rib and the collar-bone were both fractured and that the bones which so broke never united. 2. As required by S. 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Usman Khan gave notice of the acci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys152; 1966CriLJ677
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) This is an application presented under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a certain Sejjappa who at one stage, was employed as purchase assistant by the Mysore State Woollen Handloom Co-operative Society, Limited. At a particular stage, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Secretary of that society. But that order of suspension was set aside by the arbitrator to whom the dispute was referred under S. 71 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act. There were allegations against the petitioner that he had committed an offence of misappropriation. There were also counter allegations by the petitioner that a large sum of money was due to him towards salary and other amounts. The arbitrator found on all these questions in favour of the petitioner and set aside the order of suspension. There was an appeal preferred by the society to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed. (2) Thereafter, an investigation was started by the concerned pol...
Tag this Judgment!