Karnataka Court October 1964 Judgments
Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1964
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ13Kant
ORDERHegde, J.1. The Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company, Ltd., the petitioner herein, has filed this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the industrial tribunal, Bangalore (to be hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), respondent 2 in this case, from proceeding with the adjudication in Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 1963 on its file. 2. The material facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner-company has a textile mill in Bangalore, which manufactures cotton, silk and cotswool piecegoods. The Government of Mysore by its order No. L.S. 4188-L.W. 1-55-8, dated 2 August, 1955, referred to the tribunal for adjudication the industrial dispute raised by certain categories of workmen of the petitioner-company. That reference was registered by the tribunal as I.C. No. 11 of 1955. Eventually an award was made. That award was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 18 October 1956. Par...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Gangadhariah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Kant86; AIR1967Mys86
1. This is an appeal by Accused 1 from his conviction for an offence of forgery punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and for an offence of falsification of accounts under Section 477-A by the court of session, Bangalore, which sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence of forgery and in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for three months, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence of falsification of accounts. The direction of the court of session was that the sentences shall run concurrently.2. The material facts are these: There was a co-operative society known as the Multipurpose Co-operative Society in the town of Pavagada in the district of Tumkur. There was a Board of Directors otherwise also known as the Committee which was in management of that co-operative society. Accused 1 was the Assistant Secretary of that Society from the, year 1951. Accused 2 who was t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevayya Veerabhadrayya Hiremath Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mys75; 1966CriLJ270
ORDER(1) The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under S. 59(b) of the Mysore Prohibition a and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 by the trial Court. The prosecution case is that on 14-7-1962 at about 7 P.M., the petitioner was found in possession of a bottle of country liquor. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Dhar war confirmed the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and restrained the fine of Rs. 500. The petitioner has come up in revision against the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Dharwar. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged 4 points before me. They are: (1) the report of the Chemical Engineer, Exhibit P-5, is inadmissible does not contain the data or particulars necessary in helping the Court to accept his opinion. (3) There was undue delay in the examination of the bottle alleged to contain liquor an...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jabbarchand and ors. Vs. C. Oliver and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant117; AIR1965Mys117; (1964)2MysLJ417
ORDER(1) The two questions that arise for my consideration in this revision petition relate to the effect of an order of annulment passed under Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on a creditors money claim and the meaning to be given to the words 'the debts of the insolvent have been paid in full' occurring in that Section.(2) The relevant facts in regard to these two questions are not in dispute. The petitioners instituted O.S. 412 of 1957 against the respondents as the heirs of one Mr. Oliver for recovery of Rs. 960-0-0 with costs and future interest from the assets of the deceased debtor. Oliver executed a promissory note of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of Jabharchand, agreeing to pay interest at Rs. 5/- per cent per mensem. Thereafter, he filed an application for adjudication as an insolvent and was adjudged as such on 2-9-1949. The petitioners proved their debts and were paid Rs. 1028/- on different dates in respect of the dividends declared by the Insolvency Act. Oliver applied...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Sridharan Vs. the Management of Kedukal Estate, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant121; AIR1965Mys121
ORDER(1) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for the quashing of the award dated 7-3-1962 (as per annexure A) passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bangalore, in reference No. 5/62. The service of the present petitioner T.P. Sridharan having been retrenched by the respondent, viz., the Management of Kedukal Estate, a reference had been made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to the said Labour Court, for adjudication. The point of dispute which was referred was:'Whether the Management of Kedukal Estate Boikere P.O., Coorg District, were justified in retrenching the services of the Sri T.P. Sridharan Superintendent; if not, is the workmen entitled to reinstatement with back wages or any other relief?'Amongst the contentions which had been taken by the Management before the Labour Court, the relevant one for the present purposes was that T.P. Sridharan was an Officer exercising the functions, m...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Koti Poojary and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mys264; 1965CriLJ517; (1964)2MysLJ408
ORDER(1) This is a revision petition presented by the State against an order made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Puttur, discharging the two respondents under section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in proceedings commenced under section 109(a)of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an order that the two respondents should be called upon to furnish security for good behaviour.(2) The information which was furnished to the Magistrate by the Police was that on December 22, 1962 at 3-30 a.m. the two respondents were found in the verandah of the shop of a certain Ethirajulu Chettiar by P.W. 1and 2 who were doing their beat work. The evidence given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 was that when they flashed their torch lights, the respondents concealed themselves behind the pillars of the verandah and that when those two constables came nearer, the respondents came out to the road and began to run but were chased by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and caught with the assistance of P.W. 3, a Gurkha watchman, who was c...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas D'Souza and Ors. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mys53; 1966CriLJ150
ORDER(1) The five accused before the Courts below are the petitioners in this revision petition. Accused I is the brother-in-law of the complainant P.W. 1. Accused 2 is the brother of Accused 1. Accused 3, 4 and 5 arbitration the sons of Accused 1. They are all residents of a village known as Neelavar in the District of South Kanara, residing in an Island in the middle of a river. They are members of a Christian family. There was some kind of a controversy in regard to the operations carried on by some members of the family for capturing bats on which the family lives, in consequence of which, there was an altercation between them which gave rise to a complaint and counter complaint, the allegations in which were to the effect that there were offences of rioting and hurt. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, informs me that in the prosecution commenced on the basis of the complaint of the petitioners there has been an Order of discharge of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Rashiamad Syed ZainuddIn Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant266; AIR1965Mys266; (1964)2MysLJ402
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J. (1) This is an application for the grant of a certificate under sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution.(2) In Writ Petitions Nos. 1411 and 1412 of 1961 presented by Mr. Chandavarkar and Mr. Moulvi, we issued a direction that the determination of their seniority in the cadre of mamlatdars should be made on the basis of the elucidation contained in paragraph 2 of a resolution of the Government of Bombay of November 21, 1941. On July 11,1963 the State Government prepared the seniority list in accordance with that direction in consequence of which Mr. Chandavarkar was assigned the twelfth rank, Mr. Moulvi the thirteenth rank and a certain Mr. Upadhye who was not a party to the two writ petitions the twenty-third rank. According to the antecedent seniority list Mr. Upadhye had been assigned the twelfth rank who, in consequence of our direction which was made in his absence, was assigned the twenty-third rank.(3) So it was that Mr. Upadhye present...
Tag this Judgment!P. Channappa Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant68; AIR1966Mys68
ORDER(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, in subject No. 27(d) dated 27-5-1961 suspending the state carriage permit of the business bearing No. MYU 3355 and the confirmation of that order, subject to reduction of period of suspension, by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 209 of 1961 dated 4-9-1961 and the further confirmation of the said order, again subject to further reduction of period of suspension, by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 956/61(M.V).(2) The material facts of the case are as follows: it is alleged that Business bearing No. MYU 3355, owned by the petitioner, was found carrying on 30-3-1961 as many as 84 passengers, while its seating capacity was only 36. In that connection, the conductor of the business was prosecuted in C.C. No. 2040/61 on the file of the Cit...
Tag this Judgment!P. Channappa Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ265
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, in Subject No. 27(d) dated 27-5-1961 suspending the stage carriage permit of the bus bearing No, MYU 3355 and the confirmation of that order, subject to reduction of period of suspension, by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 209 of 1961 dated 4-9-1961 and the further confirmation of the said order, again subject to further reduction of period of suspension, by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 956/61 (M. V.).2. The material facts of the case are as follows: It is alleged that Bus bearing No. MY 3355, owned by the petitioner, was found carrying on 30-3-1961 as many as 84 passengers, while its seating capacity was only 36. In that connection, the conductor of the bus was prosecuted in C. C. No. 2040/61 on the file of the Cit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›