Karnataka Court November 1961 Judgments

K.T. Appannah Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary to Government ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant157; AIR1962Mys157; [1962(5)FLR502]; (1962)IILLJ521Kant

A.R. Somnath Iyer, J .1. The petitioner before who is the proprietor of a Hotel in Bangalore, challenges the validity of a notification published by the State Government on July 16, 1960, fixing under the provisions of section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum rates of wages payable to five classes, of employees in residential hotels and eating houses.2. Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act empowers the appropriate Government to fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in the employments specified in Parts I and II of the schedule to that Act. Residential hotels and eating houses were not included not in the schedule when the Minimum Wages Act was enacted. But section 27 of the Act empowered the appropriate Government to add to either part of the schedule any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed, by the adoption of the procedure prescribed in that section. Under the provisions of that section residential hotels and eat...

Kalappa Dyanappa and anr. Vs. Venkatesh Alias Ramachandra Ganesh Padak ...

Court: Karnataka

Narayana Pai, J.(1) Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the first respondent as the sole plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 4, the father, the brother and the mother respectively of the first respondent, were defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The third respondent having died after the presentation of this appeal, his mother, the fourth respondent, has been recorded as his legal representative. (2) The plaintiff sued for partition and delivery to him of his one-fourth share in the suit properties said to be joint family properties of himself and defendants 1 to 3, after declaring that the alienations made by the first defendant, his father, in favour of defendants 5 to 24 are not binding on his interest in the properties. In respect of the properties in which defendants 4,8 and 9 are interested, the plaintiff entered into separate compromises with them and the suit as against them was...

G. Parasmall Vs. M.P. Jayalakshmma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant201; AIR1962Mys201

ORDER(1) The first respondent filed O. S. No. 54 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, in which the petitioner as the third defendant was the principal contesting defendant. The suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 31-8-1956. The judgment concluded with the following terms regarding costs:'The contesting defendant shall pay the costs of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall pay the court-fee due to the Government and it shall be the first charge on the schedule properties'.(2) The suit was one filed in forma pauperis. The Court-fee payable on the plaint was Rs. 1312-7-0. The other costs actually incurred by the plaintiff amounted to only Rs. 17-3-0. Pleader's fee was not included in the costs, because, no certificate appears to have been filed by the pleader certifying the receipt of fees from his client.(3) The decree as drafted contained the following terms reading the costs :'It is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff do pay Rs. 1312-7-0...

Multani and anr. Vs. Shah Abdu Turab Qadari and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1962CriLJ709

ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The facts of this case are not different from those in the case decided by this Court in Malkappa v. Padmanna 36 Mys LJ 800 : A.I.R. 1959 Mys 122. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Magistrate in the circumstances should have considered whether it was at all necessary for him to proceed with the enquiry Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Counsel for the respondent relying upon another decision of this Court reported in Imambu v. Hussenbi 38 Mys LJ 192 : A.I.R. 1960 Mys 203 argues that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not take away the jurisdiction as a Magistrate acting Under Section 145 of the CrIPC or absolve him from his duty of acting in the interests of public peace.But, there is no conflict between the two decisions. In the latter case also his Lordship Hegde, J. points out that where there is a recent decision of a civil court regarding possession of the property in dispute, the criminal co...