Karnataka Court September 1963 Judgments
D.G. Viswanath Vs. Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant132; AIR1964Mys132; (1963)2MysLJ302
Hegde, J.1. These Writ Petitions relate to admissions to professional and technical colleges. Some of petitioners have applied for admission to the course leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering, whereas others have sought admission to the Pre-Professional class in Medicine. Their applications have been rejected. Hence, each of them has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to admit him to the Engineering College or to the Medical College as the case may be. In their affidavits, they have challenged the validity of Government Orders No. ED 75 TGL 63, Bangalore, dated 26-7-1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as Ex. C) and ED 84 TGL 63, Bangalore dated 26th July 1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as Ex. D). From the arguments advanced at the Bar, the following broad contentions emerge:'(i) Ex. C is fraud on the Constitution; though the Order in question cannot be said to be patently and plainly outside the li...
Tag this Judgment!Magundappa Neelappa Kori Vs. S.C. Javali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Kant237; AIR1965Mys237; (1964)1MysLJ202
(1) The appellant instituted Long Cause Civil Suit No. 133 of 1958 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharwar against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 336 alleging that the latter whom he had engaged as his Pleader in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1949 in the Court of the District Judge at Dharwar had failed to conduct the same and declined to return the amounts received by him. The defendant respondent resisted the suit on various grounds. The suit was tried on preliminary issues pertaining to the plea of limitation set up by the defendant and was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge as being barred by time under Art. 90 of the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff then filed Civil Appeal No. 357 of 1959 in the Court of the District Judge without any success. In the present appeal Shri H.F.M. Reddi the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had erred in disposing of the suit without recording evidence on all the points arising in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Neelappagouda Ramangouda Patil and ors. Vs. Kariyappa Gouda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Kant46; AIR1965Mys46
(1) The short question involved in this case is where the remand made by the District Judge to the Civil Judge of a matter relating to execution of a partition decree was improperly made. The material facts are these :(2) In a suit for partition, the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to a third share in the properties which framed the subject matter of the suit. When an execution application was presented for execution of that partition decree, the Civil Judge dismissed the execution application on the ground that the partition, if made, would create, a fragment prohibited by the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.(3) From this order made by the Civil Judge, there was an appeal to the District Judge and in that appeal there was a consent order and one part of that consent order was that the question whether the decree-holder could be allotted one or more lands in their entirety should be considered by the executing Court.(4) When the matter w...
Tag this Judgment!M. Uma Shenoy Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1967Kant93; AIR1967Mys93
Kalagate, J.1. The petitioner, a teacher in the Canara High School, Urva, Mangalore, challenges the order of the second respondent, dated 26th October, 1962 and also the order of the third respondent, dated 15th November 1962, in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner was employed as a teacher by the third respondent on certain terms which are embodied in the agreement, Ext. A, dated 5th December 1952, entered into between them. While she (petitioner) was thus working as a teacher, an incident took place on 5th December 1961. According to the third respondent, the Headmaster asked her to go to VIII Standard B for substitution work for the first period but she did not go there and also refused to sign what is called the 'book of substitution work'. The Headmaster, therefore, asked her to explain her conduct within 24 hours why the matter should not be reported to the Manager for disciplinary action. The petitioner, it appears, did not comply with the requirement of the Headmaster...
Tag this Judgment!Appayya Naika and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mys177; 1964CriLJ313
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Puttur, South Kanara, in M.C. 20 of 1962 declaring that the second respondent--'A Party' -- was in possession of the disputed items of immoveable properties, two months prior to the date of the preliminary order and that he is entitled to continue to be in possession, thereof until duly evicted therefrom by an order of the competent Civil Court, in a proceeding started, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. On the basis of a report from the Station House Officer, Puttur Station, that there was a dispute between the members of A and B parties which is likely to cause breach of peace regarding the possession of a thatched house measuring Order 18 cents comprised in S. No. 294 /1-C, field measuring 1 acre 26 cents comprised in S. No. 294/2 and Kumki land in S. No. 244/1-A statute in Narimogru village Puttur Taluk, the Executive Magistrate, Puttur, passed a prelimin...
Tag this Judgment!Rayappa and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant61; AIR1964Mys61; 1964CriLJ415; (1963)2MysLJ211
T.K. Tukol, J.1. This is a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order of commitment of the two petitioners to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, to stand their trial under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navalgund, under Section 207-A (ID) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The story of the prosecution is that one Channavvawife of Nagappa Jagadannavar of Ahatti village wanted aloan of Rs. 500/- for the performance of her Son'smarriage. She approached one Devappa Siddappa Gundolliof Jagapur village on a Sunday. At the time of the Talk,accused No. 1 was present. Devappa told her to approachhim the next day. On Monday the 29th April, 1963,Channavva went to Devappa's house at about 7 a.m. Devappa paid her Rs. 300/-. Accused No. 1 who was Devappa's servant was present at that time. On receipt ofRs. 300/- Channavva left the village and Devappa...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. T.K. Nanjunda Setty and Sons ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant147; AIR1964Mys147; (1963)2MysLJ513
Tukol, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the order passed by the principal District Judge, Bangalore, directing that the arbitration agreement between the appellants and the respondents be filed in Court.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are not in dispute. Messrs. T.K. Nanjanda Setty and Sons a firm of Merchants carrying on business in silk goods in their shop situated at No. 282/1 Rangaswami Temple Street, Bangalore-2, insured their goods against fire with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (Respondent No. 1) under policy No. 10792 in April 1961 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-for the period commencing from 11-4-1961 to 11-4-1962. The firm, and the State Bank of Mysore who had advanced some loans to the firm on hypothecation of goods had jointly insured the goods in February 1961, against fire with the Bombay Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, under Policy No. 303295 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the period commencing f...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Nagnoor Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant229; AIR1964Mys229; (1964)1MysLJ212
Kalagate, J. 1. The petitioner who is a Commercial Tax Officer has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting this Court (1) to quash the Notification No. FD 105 CSE 60, dated the 19th November 1962, issued by Respondent 1, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction; and (2) to direct Respondent-1 to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Commercial Taxes with, effect from 19-11-1962 by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or? direction as this court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner states that he is a double graduate of the University of Bombay and was appointed on 24th April 1946 as Sales Tax Inspector in the Sales Tax Department of the erstwhile State of Bombay. On and March 1953 he was promoted as Sales Tax Officer, Grade in, on the scale of pay of Rs. 250-15-400-EB-20 500.3. In the Sales Tax Department of the former State of Bombay, though there were tw...
Tag this Judgment!National Advertisers Vs. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant220; AIR1964Mys220; ILR1963KAR980; (1963)2MysLJ356
1. The short question arising in this appeal is whether the injunction which was granted to the appellant was wrongly vacated.2. The Appellant made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and, the direction he sought in that application was that there should be a reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties or any other suitable Order which could be made under its provisions. When the application was first presented there was an Order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from securing advertisements to be displayed on the transport vehicles belonging to the Respondent except through the instrumentality of the appellant. That injunction was granted by the Court but when the respondent sought the cancellation of that injunction, it was cancelled.3. Mr. Srinivasan for the appellant urges that the injunction should have continued. He depends upon an agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent under the terms of which, according to M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›