{"id":235011,"date":"2010-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-18T07:33:36","modified_gmt":"2017-02-18T02:03:36","slug":"sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
BETWEEN\n\n1.\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 30\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010]'-\u00ab..OT_E'~AEv\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.3uSTIc:E     \n\nAND\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRS.JuSTi cuTE-.EB.v.\"NAG.ARATHA?\u00a7IA.,E \n\nREVIEW PETITION NG0:fj3.77VV_OF 1.2.003 \n\nWRIT AP\"RE~AL_ Ng.g2I3']'2OOb8  M\n\nSR1 S.:,.. v:EBKATARAi:\u00bb\u00a2A'IAH--  \nS\/Q_.T__,SRI..VLAr<.;:<_A\u00a3u!\\lA,_" *  \nAG EO ABQUT 55 YEARS, I \nRIESIDING'ATV-N'O._2'lQ;-----., I A\n2"'D'--STAGE, }I_NG;\"AT NO.1S6, 3\" MAIN,\n\nA , 2N9 _PHTA_SE, MANJUNATHNAGAR,\n\nRMAJINAGAR,\nBANGALORE 560 010\n\nT\"SRI v.S. SHANKARE GOWDA\n\n \"S\/O. SRI. SHIVANNA GOWDA\n\nAGEO ABOUT 62 YEARS\nRESIDING AT No.2, 1\" CROSS,\nwoc ROAO, INDIRANAGAR\nBANGALORE 560 021\n\n\n\n2\n\nSRI CHANDRASEKHARAIAH\nS\/O. SRI BASAVAIAH\nAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS\nRESIDING AT NO. 1271,\nCOCONUT GARDEN\nPEENYA DASARAHALLI\nBANGALORE 560 057\n\nSRI BETTAIAH\nS\/O. SRI REVAIAH\nAGEO ABOUT 52 YEARS\nRESIDING AT NO. 378,\n8\" MAIN, MILK COLONY\nMALLESWARAM WEST\nBANGALORE 560 055\n\nSRI K. MANJUNATHA  \nS\/O. SRI s<.v. KES.HAVAR,A3"U'T  \nAGEO ABOUT 45 YEARS ;    "\nRESIDING AT No.51,  '\nBEHIND RAJESWARL ,  '\n\nEN'G1NEE..RfING1wORKS 1\nRA3_ESUHwA'R:A*'NAGA'R,, T. A\nLAGGERE, REENYA R. \nBANGALORE '3f6<3;05,8"_;.\n\nSR1  RU*'rTA'R'AMA.1AH\n\n~ _ JjAGE.UO ABOUT '5~5------YEARS,\n RESIEDING AT NO.124, 3*" CROSS\n\n .a;A..YO--UT\n\n"7'._Es'!A'RA'NAHAL'LI\n\nVIJAYANAGAR\n\n""BAN'GA:;ORE 560 040\n\nf,,_SRrO.SUBBANNA\n_ 'S\/O ARI DODDANNA\n AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS\n\nRESIDING AT NO. :20, 1:7" CROSS\n2"" MAIN ROAD,\n\nGAYATHRI NAGAR,\n\nSRIRAMPURAM POST\n\n\n\n10.\n\n11.\n\n  _ "5,\/O,SR1~S'1'OOAIAH\n .__AGEDW.ABQ'UT 54 YEARS\n\nBANGALORE 560 021\n\nSRI B.M. NAGARAJA\nS\/O SR1 MUDAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 63 YEARS\nRESIDING AT NO. 553-5\n339 STAGE, rv BLOCK,\nBASAVESHWARANAGAR\nSRIRAMPURAM POST\nBANGALORE 560 021\n\nSR1 B. JAYARAM\nS\/O SRI BOMMANNA\n\nAGED ABOUT 59 YEARS7 \n\nRESIDING AT NO. 226,\n\nMUNIBYRAPPA COMPOUNBR: _\n\nSUBRAMANYANAGAR\nS RI RAM PU RAM POST,"\n\nBANGALORE 560 021  T' .5\n\nSR1 G. SE\u20ac.VET:|fiA_RAr;:\u00a2i\n\nS\/'O SR1 ..\u00e9g.ORA3&;A i\u00a7JA1fOLJ  \n\nAG_ED_ ABVOL.-TY\u00bb59 YEARYS ' -\nRESIDING AT=Af_:'O_.' 1.59.7\/~1,\nNAGAPPA VBLOCK, \u00bb-- V \nSR1RAM~RU'R.AM " \n\n_}'3ANGALOnRE,,56O Q21\n\nSROITH.B}-RAMAKRISHNA\n\nRES_IOIi\\:G AT NO. 25,\n\n""'~54T"v--1.'cRO'SS, MALLESWARAM\n\nBANGALORE 560 010\n\n.V A SR1 R. NAGARAJ\n S\/O SRI. RANGAPPA\n\nAGEO ABOUT 41 YEARS\nRESIDING AT NO.221,\n1 MAIN ROAD, 2"" PHASE,\nMANJUNATHANAGAR,\n\n\n\nRAJAHNAGAR,\nBANGALORE - 10\n\n14. SR1 K. SATHYANARAYANA\nS\/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS\nRESIDING AT NO. 2348,\n2"" STAGE, RAIAIINAGAR,\nBANGALORE 560 010\n\n(BY SR1 SUBBA RAO., SENIOR COuN'SEL'\u00ab:=.OR., ., 1\nM\/S. SUBBA RAO & CO., ADVS.,) I   \nAND\n\nTHE MANAGEMENT OF GKW LTDY, \nSANKEY ELECTRICAL STAMPING  . ..\nDIVISION, DR. RAJsRA'YI,;a:AG'EOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 27~08~\n\n2'00'B...PA'SS'EY.D 'I\u00a7N\"\"'wA No.213\/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE\n\nV . HON'BLE<HIGI\u00a7 COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.\n\n w. 'ifHIS RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,\n\n ..jjSA\u00a73HAHIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:--\n\n  %  \n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
This review petition is filed for review of the order<\/p>\n
passed by this Court dated 27.08.2008, whegreil\u00e9nilgliviritV3<\/p>\n
Appeal No.2}.3\/2008 was dismissed holding that”.t:her_e: u<\/p>\n
no merit in the appeal and there was lnoreas-on.;t0lVi’nterfer’e <\/p>\n
with the order passed by the ggiearnaed single  <\/p>\n
20.11.2007 in WP. No.17038\/2’0e0i6<.. V.\n<\/p>\n
2. The above said order’-..da–ted 2’7;08′.20_08 has<\/p>\n
been passed after hearir’:g:i”t_he.gcitiuvnlsei\u00bbappearing for the<\/p>\n
parties. {ThispAetitioVn7for\u00abreview has been filed under Order<\/p>\n
xxxxvu siui\u00e9 1 read’ilwitnsiectlion :51 of CPC., contending<\/p>\n
that _ordie.- 27.08.2008 suffers from error<\/p>\n
 appaV.r’entE”‘o’i:  face the order and the same is required<\/p>\n
to is contended that the settlement dated<\/p>\n
0  _O9.0″?\u00ab\u00ab,.20(_J’5  not binding upon the appeilants – review<\/p>\n
V”‘”–..petitig0ner’s:herein as the same had not been signed by<\/p>\n
,th.e’rn–  Sri Muralicihar, Advocate who has signed the<\/p>\n
 settlement as the Secretary of the Workers’ Union<\/p>\n
 ” ” was also appearing for the appellants – review petitioners<\/p>\n
up<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nherein before the Labour Court. Therefore, the settlement
\nentered into by Sri Muralidhar as the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Workers’ union wouid not be binding and in view oftthe<\/p>\n
provisions of Rule 59(3) of the Industriai<\/p>\n
(Karnataka) Rules, 1957, settlement ought K V’<\/p>\n
signed by the individuai workman.\n<\/p>\n
3. We have heard the Eeiarniectsenior,’Vcousni’sei7f<\/p>\n
appearing for the review petiVtio”r.eV_rs h’erein,_viiho’:._;a”re.. the
\nappeiiants in the appeal and..wV:g”‘i.trieg’ learned Hvdounsei<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondent,”–‘iyEi–o\u00abiirespondent in the<\/p>\n
writ appeal.-_* V    .,\n<\/p>\n
4. = The l’earn:e\u00bbd “s.e_nio~~r counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
review. -petitiotners ‘vehernenhtly argued that the order dated<\/p>\n
;.nf’gV”;7,orei;2oip8 ‘passed””En”W.A. No.213\/2008 dismissing the<\/p>\n
‘a.ppeaV|’ sis::’etr%roVne_o’_Lis and suffers from an error apparent on<\/p>\n
theiface  order as the Court failed to note that<\/p>\n
i3″=-‘\u00ab.___VMuaralidhVa1r was not authorized to sign the settfement<\/p>\n
 dated.f:O9.07.2OOS and the order passed by the learned<\/p>\n
 Judge was not justified having regard to the<\/p>\n
twig;\n<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
provisions of Rule 59 of the Industrial Disputes
\n(Karnataka) Ruies, 3.957. which stipulates that where a<\/p>\n
sett\u00e9ement pertains to a workman whose dispute”-,is<\/p>\n
pending before the Labour Court, the settiement  <\/p>\n
signed by the individual workman. The |eari’:edCf_s’enior’<\/p>\n
counsei further submitted that theM”revie_w~\u00ab,_pe’ti.ti_on_e.rs’:3- <\/p>\n
appeiiants stood on a different footingw.fro–m other <\/p>\n
as they were subjected to ma’i’ic:i’o-.13 pro*sect:ti.on”:.;b’yV’ the
\nrespondent by initiatingg\ufb01criminnall”p’roceedingsy”and they
\nwere dismissed from serviicel’an:d’V th_e’.ff.’\u00a7;a’n_1e had been<\/p>\n
chal\u00e9enged befg;i”c–:A.ut_he izftaboo-‘r ‘\u00abCo’Lijrt,V_.___wh’ich dispute is<\/p>\n
pendingi\ufb01arid*wheV:.’efo’re,'”they ought to have been given<\/p>\n
additionai benefiVts\u00b0u_n’d:ei= thesettlement, having regard to<\/p>\n
__the separate  of: the review petitioners herein —<\/p>\n
.”~._appe.ii’:ants.:..\n<\/p>\n
_.”4.__’i”\u00bbh’e~t.:”tiearned counsei appearing for the<\/p>\n
respo_ndent.submitted that the respondent –~ Company had<\/p>\n
‘VV.”~’.”””VfS.’I,ed a detailed rehabilitation scheme before the Board for<\/p>\n
   and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R) and the<\/p>\n
 and the settlements entered into between the<\/p>\n
 (CE:\n<\/p>\n
ii<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent and the Workers’ union had been approved by<\/p>\n
the B.I.F.R. The settlement dated 09.07.2005 <\/p>\n
entered into between the respondent and Worke–rs”‘”u’~n.ipon,*i._._'” _<\/p>\n
wherein Muraiidhar, the counsel,M,Vappea.ri’ng*~i:’_f0’r”~:Vtheru<\/p>\n
workmen before the Labour Co’urt,;”‘i1i3s\u00ab’=.si\u00a7ined”V:”‘eh<\u00a7:i:fA<\/p>\n
settienient as the Secretaryi'of–..the lwolrizers\ufb02iuiriieri,Jtod<\/p>\n
which the review petitioners – ap_pe!,i:an.ts are  and
\neven though, the reviewypetitwioriers'*–h'acl:'been dismissed
\nfrom service, they-.are trea'tedjAori~  workmen in
\nservice and    the persons in
\nservice  V:'_::iV:fhe:\u00e9'ei"ore, care has been
\ntaken to'1.iproteActV00tVhe: the review petitioners aiso.<\/p>\n
The settiernent iVsV"si.\u00a7'iiedV:'bgr4proper persons representing<\/p>\n
___the Wprkers' iinion andithe settiement was not in respect<\/p>\n
 _Vi'nd%iv4iA'duai workman, but, in respect of 217<\/p>\n
\u00bbveri\u20acrnen;*   of the scheme approved by the BIFR.,<\/p>\n
V the Court was justified in holding that the review<\/p>\n
Mu"0'~44"'xpetiti.io_n'ers herein are bound by the settiement dated<\/p>\n
'.'_'i&~09i..:G'?."2005 and the iearned single Judge was also justified<\/p>\n
0 'hoiding that the said settiement is binding upon the writ<\/p>\n
0. petitioners (review petitioners herein). This Court has<\/p>\n
0 Kg’)?\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
also rightly held in writ appeal that the appellants (review
\npetitioners herein) are bound by the settlement dated<\/p>\n
09.07.2005. The learned counsel further submittedtiaat<\/p>\n
no ground whatever is made out for review of <\/p>\n
dated 27.08.2008, wherein all the contentions”tihatffwnere <\/p>\n
urged before this Court have beeng’Jc22on’_s\u00a7der’egd <\/p>\n
has been disposed of on merits\u00bb. _<\/p>\n
6. We have given cai*e:f’u! cons–ide’ra_t’E:on’:.:to the<\/p>\n
contentions of the leatned .co’uris’e!Vj”appearin’g”for the<\/p>\n
parties and scrutinized the h’iVateri’a’l o.n_22Vr”ef\u00a7:o22rd.<\/p>\n
 _TAh’\u00a77mVateriai\u00ab.on.__record would clearly show that
\nthe quest’i’o,n,’ which by the Labour Court and<\/p>\n
the learnyed .slngV_le’13u’dge in the writ petition —- W.P.<\/p>\n
  andlmin the appeal filed by the review<\/p>\n
‘hp-eltsltiorjersls.heVre:\ufb01~~ in W.A. No.213\/2008 is as to whether<\/p>\n
2  _ the “sett|,.__emerlt dated 09.07.2003 was binding upon the<\/p>\n
:Worl<r2'aerlV.–li)efore the Labour Court, who are petitioners in<\/p>\n
 .._\u00abti*iVe'\u00bbwr:it petition and appellants in the writ appeal. In<\/p>\n
View of the fact that the settlement dated 09.07.2005,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
which was signed by the representatives of the workers’
\nunion had been approved by the BIFR., and the fact that<\/p>\n
seven review petitioners, viz., petitioner l\\los.3, 6, 8, 9′,’:’iQ,<\/p>\n
11 and 14 had already accepted the benefits <\/p>\n
setttement, the learned single held <\/p>\n
petitioners are bound by the settlen]:ent::dgate’dgg <\/p>\n
This Court, after considering Val|_the Ac-ontentioggnisl..ta’ised”}at’i V<\/p>\n
the time of hearing of the writ 1\u00e9i’ip..Vp_’eal_ onli27;03;20t)s,ViV has
\npassed the order holvdjihg thelnsettlemventyy dated
\n09.07.2005 was signed byfrepre’se’rita.tives of the<\/p>\n
workers’ Union.’lA};fFherefore’,.”‘:’0’rd.e.r.V.7passed by the<\/p>\n
Labour single Judge holding that the<\/p>\n
settlement “dated  binding upon the review<\/p>\n
…y’i3etiti,o.ii:j’ers~ herei’n’ivV;\u00a7u9l3:lfied and no ground was made out<\/p>\n
‘7._for:i\u00abnterfVering:wcith the order passed by the learned single<\/p>\n
 order passed by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
A  .~ ~I_t’;is well settled that the scope of review under<\/p>\n
T7-‘\u00ab.___VO.rder XXXVII CPC., is limited to correct the errors<\/p>\n
  g”ap_pvagre”i”it on the face of the””order and it is not meant to<\/p>\n
 out as to whether the order is erroneous, after<\/p>\n
W”\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
permitting the parties to reargue the appeal again as any<\/p>\n
finding given on merits, which is erroneous has..’to:’-~..l_j’e_<\/p>\n
challenged in accordance with law and not inyla <\/p>\n
petition. Also, no appeal can be _fil.ed_in <\/p>\n
review petition. Having regard to the atlovye said <\/p>\n
hold that all the contentions thlatwgere raised_at.::the”ti.me3 of<\/p>\n
hearing on 27.08.2003.haveAg,..pVee.n’w~.,conside.ted’by the
\nDivision Bench of  merit in the
\ncontention of th4e”revie:w”‘ Muralidhar,
\nSecretary of All  l-:metlggl umancgngregs (A.I.T.U.C),
\n(Karnatal_<a_ not authorized to
\nrepresent settlement as apart from Sri<\/p>\n
Muralidhar,"~-tg__4\u00a35riv  w\ufb01na\u00e9ntha Subba Rao, General<\/p>\n
 Secrei\u00a7:arycr,. A.I.'i.tf.:C., 'l;Karnataka State Committee) has<\/p>\n
a'lso..sign:'eVd_the-,s'ett|ement dated 09.07.2005, which fact is<\/p>\n
nctAV"l.-dlisp'ujted_.'~l;;."'V;l'herefore, it is clear that the said<\/p>\n
.q conte"ntioVn. ofgthe review petitioners would not in any way<\/p>\n
u the order passed by this Court in WA. No.213\/2008<\/p>\n
.'gig'_.d"ate'diA' 27.08.2008 reiterating the finding of the Labour<\/p>\n
0 "Court and the learned single Judge that the settlement<\/p>\n
0' dated 09.07.2005 is binding upon the appellants (review<\/p>\n
6'
\n1\u00bb-"'-~
\nJ<\/p>\n
1-',<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners herein). Accordingiy, we hoid that there is.___no<\/p>\n
merit in this review petition and pass the foiiowing <\/p>\n
The review petition is dismissedm <\/p>\n
sazmai ”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna BETWEEN 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30″ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010]’-\u00ab..OT_E’~AEv PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.3uSTIc:E AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JuSTi cuTE-.EB.v.”NAG.ARATHA?\u00a7IA.,E REVIEW PETITION NG0:fj3.77VV_OF 1.2.003 WRIT AP”RE~AL_ Ng.g2I3′]’2OOb8 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-18T02:03:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T02:03:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T02:03:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-18T02:03:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T02:03:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010"},"wordCount":1409,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010","name":"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T02:03:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-l-venkataramaiah-vs-the-management-of-gkw-ltd-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri S L Venkataramaiah vs The Management Of Gkw Ltd on 30 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}