Karnataka Court March 1956 Judgments
D.P. Raghunath Vs. State of Coorg and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant8; AIR1957Mys8
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. The petitioner who was in the service of Coorg Government as a teacher was dismissed by an order of the District Educational Officer on 8-12-53. Thereupon he petitioned to the Government of Coorg for setting aside that order but was unsuccessful. He has applied to this Court for the order being quashed on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to him to explain why the order should not have been passed. It is admitted, however, that the appointment he held was temporary, that prior to his dismissal he was involved in an assault against a collegue, and that as a punishment for this a penalty was imposed upon him and paid up. 2. There is no doubt that Article 311 of the Constitution requires that a person should be notified to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him before he is removed from service or otherwise dealt with. The fact that the petitioner was employed temporarily does not justify the course prescribed by the said Artic...
Tag this Judgment!M.H. Krishnappa Vs. D.K. Govindachar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant9; AIR1957Mys9
Padmanabhiah, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the order of remand passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, in R, A. No. 239 of 1954, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Munsiff, Bangalore, in Order Section No. 294 of 52-53. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants in Order Section No. 294 of 52-53 on the file of the learned Second Munsiff, Bangalore. Plaintiff's suit was one for specific performance of an agreement to Sell dated 6-11-1950, executed by defendant 1 undertaking to sell the Schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 775/-. Plaintiff's grievance was that defendant 1 had subsequent to the date of this agreement sold the property to defendant 2 who had purchased the same with the knowledge of the agreement of Sale, and therefore he filed a suit against both the defendants for specific performance of the agreement. The defendants denied the plaintiff's c...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Abdul Azeez Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant12; AIR1957Mys12
Padmanabhiah, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the ex parte order of dismissal passed by respondent 1 Government on the application made by him, and for restoration of the lands bearing Section Nos. 1 and 14 at Gubbi Town, which are ordered to be acquired.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:3. The petitioner is a resident of Gubbi Town and respondent 1 is the State Government, respondent 2 being the Gubbi Town Municipality. The petitioner is the owner of Section No. 1 having an extent of 15 guntas and Section No. 14 having an extent of 3U guntas. Respondent 1 Government started acquisition proceedings in respect of these lands at the instance of respondent 2 Municipality.At that stage the petitioner, who had been per. mitted by the Deputy Commissioner to convert s. No, 14 into sites, applied for a stay or t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalamma Vs. Venkataswamappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant11; AIR1957Mys11; ILR1956KAR136
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Order 44, R.I, Civil P.O. for permission to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Order Section No. 112 of 1951-52, in forma pan-peris.2. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the Court below and had sought for Cancellation of the sale deed dated 26-2-1951 executed by her in favour of the respondent and relating to the plaint schedule property on the ground that it was a false, fraudulent and nominal document, she had also sought for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the respondent with mesne profits.The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner and contended among other things that he was the absolute owner of the property having purchased it from its previous owner for valuable consideration on 10-5-1947 but had got the sale deed nominally executed in the name of the petitioner, who was his wife & that the petitioner had subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Kenchappa Vs. Rokhade Nagappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant1; AIR1957Mys1; ILR1956KAR129
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by the Division Bench before which it was posted for hearing as doubt was felt about the correctness of the view expressed in 47 Mys HCR 337 (A),. on the question of limitation. It was held in that case 'if therefore at the time when the puisne mortgagee sues to enforce the first mortgage by virtue of subrogation a suit by the first mortgagee is barred by time, the puisne mortgagee's suit is equally barred by time. This is the position which is accepted by the Calcutta, Madras and Patna rulings ..... Limitation counts fromthe date on which the money under the first mortgage became due and not from the date on which the subsequent mortgagee paid it off whether the money paid was still due under the mortgage or under a decree obtained on that mortgage'.Applying this principle, the lower Court has dismissed a suit filed by a person in the position of a co-mortgagor for recovery of amounts paid by him in excess of his lia...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanabhatta Vs. Special First Class Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1415
ORDERSreenivasa Rao, J.1. The petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court practising at Srirangapatna challenges by this revision petition his conviction for an offence under Section 228, Penal Code by the Special First Class Magistrate at Srirangapatna based on the finding that the petitioner's conduct in the course of a proceeding in C. C. No. 1131/55 on his file amounted to insulting the Court and caused interruption to the proceedings.2. The circumstances leading to the drawing up of proceedings by the learned Magistrate resulting in the conviction of the petitioner are as follows:3. The petitioner was appearing for the accused in C. C. No. 1131/55. On 21-12-55 one Kempamma was examined as the second witness for the prosecution. In the course of her cross-examination the petitioner appears to have put a question to the witness seeking to elicit from her an answer involving the time factor, she gave the answer in terms of the hours of the clock i.e., as eight o'clock in the morning....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›