Karnataka Court July 1961 Judgments
Gurubasappa and ors. Vs. Gurulingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant246; AIR1962Mys246; ILR1961KAR878
Iqbal Husain, J.(1) The important question to be decided in this appeal is which the document executed by the plaintiffs -- appellants father Siddappa in favour of the defendant -- respondent is a 'Viswasi Bai' and not an out and out sale as contended by the appellants. The plaintiffs- appellants were successful in the trial Court which decreed their suit for declaration of their title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit properties. But the judgment and decree so passed in their favour were reversed by the learned District Judge, Gulbarga in Appeal No. 35/4 of 1953-54. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal before the Hyderabad High Court which , on transfer, was heard by a Bench of this Court consisting of His Lordship justice M.A. Ali khan and myself.By an order dated 27th day of February 1959 the case was remanded under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for the determination of the market value of the disputed Land at the time when the sale deed Exhibit. A-1 was execu...
Tag this Judgment!K. Siddalingappa Vs. the Revenue Appellate Tripunki and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant161; AIR1962Mys161
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner obtained a permit to operate his stage carriage between Kunigal and Tumkur. The District Magistrate, Tumkur, who was then exercising the powers of a Regional Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act permitted him to leave Kunigal at 3,50 P.M. This was done by an order made by him on October 16, 1950. Respondent 4, who was another operator was, in respect of his service, permitted to leave Kunigal at 3.45. P.M.(2) According to the Petitioner by its resolution which it passed on February 25, 1954, the Regional Transport Authority directed the petitioner to leave Kunigal at 3.45 P.M. instant of 3.30 P.M. although, according to the timings originally assigned he had to leave Kunigal only at 3.45 P.M. On behalf of respondent 4, Mr. Venkatanarasimhachar does not admit that by the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Tumkur, on February 25, 1954, the timings originally assigned to the petitioner were altered. His contention is that ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Appanna Setty and Sons Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Tumkur and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ516Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. By a notification made by the Government on 25 November 1959, under the provisions of S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, what the Government thought was an industrial dispute, was referred by it to this industrial tribunal over which Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharayya was then presiding. The terms of office of Mr. Chandrasekharayya expired on 4 July, 1960, according to the petitioners. By a notification issued under S. 7A of the Act, Mr. Malimath, a retired Judge of this Court, was appointed to preside over that tribunal. The hearing of the reference which was pending before Mr. Chandrasekharayya was continued by Mr. Malimath. 2. On behalf of the ten employers who constituted the second party in that reference, a request was made that certain issues, which according to the petitioners were issues of law, should, in the first instance, be decided. One Mr. Hanumanthayya who is a legal practitioner at Tumkur, was permitted with the consent of the employees of represe...
Tag this Judgment!Gowrishanker Oil Mills Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ527Kant; (1962)IILLJ527Kant
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. These writ petitions involve the question whether the industrial tribunal, Bangalore, has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon certain complaints made by some of the employees who are the petitioners in these cases that there has been a transgression of the provisions of S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the concerned employers. The question arises in this way. 2. On 25 November 1959 a dispute, which according to the State Government was an industrial dispute, was referred to the Industrial tribunal under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That reference is now pending before the industrial tribunal presided over by Mr. Malimath. An objection was raised on behalf of the employers to the jurisdiction of this tribunal to adjudicate upon these complaints. The foundation of this objection was that the dispute referred to the tribunal was not an industrial dispute since that dispute did not have the support of a substantial section of employees. 3. At an e...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Appanna Setty and Sons Rice and Oil Mils and ors. Vs. S.S. Mailma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant108; AIR1962Mys108
Somanth Iyer, J. (1) By a Notification made by the Government on November 25, 1959 under the provisions of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, what the Government thought was an industrial dispute, was referred by it to the Industrial Tribunal over which Mr. D. H . Chandrasekharajah was then presiding. The term of office of Mr. Chandrasekharajah expired on July 4, 1960, according to the petitioners. By a Notification issued under S. 7-A of the Act, Mr. Malimath , a retired Judge of this Court was appointed to preside over that Tribunal. The hearing of the reference which was pending before Mr. Chandrasekharaijah was continued by Mr. Malimath. (2) On behalf of the ten employers who constituted the second party in that reference, a request was made that certain issues, which according to the petitioner were issue of law, should in the first instance, he decided. One Mr. Hanumantiah who is a Legal Practitioner at Tumkur, was permitted with the consent of the employees to repr...
Tag this Judgment!Sirnivasa Silk Mills and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant117; AIR1962Mys117; [1962(4)FLR144]; ILR1962KAR22
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) These three cases relate to a reference made under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the Government of the State of Mysore, in respect of the Industrial disputes stated therein.(2) These references which were made originally to another Tribunal stood transferred at one stage to a Tribunal presided over by one Mr. D.H. Chandrasekhariah, and which was constituted under the provisions of S. 7-A of the Act, on July 5, 1957. The notification by which that Tribunal was constituted reads:'In exercises of the powers conferred by S, 7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government of Mysore here by constitutes an Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and appoints Shri. D.H. Chandrasekhariah, B.A. LL.B., as the presiding officer of the said Tribunal.'(3) It will be seen from this notification that the Government of Mysore which is appoin...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Beedies (Private) Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1961
Reported in: [1963]14STC139(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act manufacturing and dealing in beedies, possessing a licensed private warehouse as defined by rule 2(xv) read with rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, framed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On 1st June, 1955, this company purchased 7,895 1/2 pounds of un manufactured tobacco for a sum of Rs. 15,650. On 2nd June, 1955, it purchased another 8,102 1/2 pounds of un manufactured tobacco for Rs. 16,060. Theses purchases were made by the company from a dealer known as B. V. Baliga & Company. Theses quantities of tobacco purchased by the company were stored by it in its licensed private warehouse, and when the purchases were made by it the excise duty payable in respect of those quantities of tobacco had not been paid by the dealer from which the company purchased it. On 9th August, 1955, and 22nd August, 1955, the company, after obtaining the necessary permission for ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Srinivasiah Vs. the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant87; AIR1962Mys87
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner is a stage carriage operator on the road between Madanapalli and Chintamani, Madanapalli which was formerly in the State of Madras is now in the State of Andra Pradesh. The route on which the petitioner was operating was therefore aninteer-state route. The permit had been granted to him by the Mysore Transport Authorities and was counter signed by the madras Authorities.(2) According to the petitioner, that primate entitled him on leave Madanapalli at 6 a.m. But, this fact is controverted by Mr. Venkataramiah, appearing on behalf of respondent it who urges that that permit entitled him to leave Madanapalli only at 8 a.m. and not at 6 a.m.(3) Anyhow, what is admitted on behalf of the petitioner is that in the year 1954, the petitioner was required to leave Madanapalli only at 8 a.m. The petitioner made representation against this direction and this representations culminated finally in an order made by the state of Mysore on August 24, 1954, according ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›