Karnataka Court June 1964 Judgments
Ramayya M. (District Statistical Officer, Kolar) Vs. State of Mysore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1964
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ421Kant
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. The point which is involved in this writ petition is a short one. The petitioner was one of seven persons who, by the Government order dated 27 October 1959 (as per annexure H). had been appointed to officiate as Assistant Statisticians (gazetted), until further orders. Prior to this order, these seven persons were all holding the (non-gazetted) posts of Senior Statistical Assistants. These seven persons were promoted against seven vacant posts. In the list of seven persons who were so promoted as per annexure H, the petitioner was the third; that is, there were four others who were his juniors, who also were promoted as per annexure H. Thereafter, by the Government order, date 5 March 1960 (as per annexure J), the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post as Senior Statistical Assistant. It is to be noticed that no reason was given in the order as per annexure J, for the reversion of the petitioner from his officiating post of an Assistant Statistician (g...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramaiah Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant164; AIR1965Mys164
M. Sadasivayya, J. (1) The point which is involved in this writ petition is, a short one. The petitioner was one of seven persons who, by the Government Order, dated 27-10-1959 (as per Annexure 'H') had been appointed to officiate as Assistant Statisticians (Gazetted), until further orders. Prior to this order, these seven persons were promoted against seven vacant posts. In the list of seven persons who were so promoted as per Annexure 'H', the petitioner was the third; that is, there were four others who were his juniors, who also were promoted as per Annexure 'H'. Thereafter, by the Government Order, dated 5-3-1960 (as per Annexure J), the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post as Senior Statistical Assistant. It is to be noticed that no reason was given in the order as per Annexure 'J', for the reversion of the petitioner from his officiating post of an Assistant Statistician (Gazetted), to his substantive post as Senior Statistical Assistant. Subsequently, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Saundatti S.B. Vs. Biyamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1964
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ130Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. This is an appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act from an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, awarding to the dependents of a certain Dastagir, a sum of Rs. 2,100 by way of compensation under S. 3 of the Act. Dastagir, according to the allegations of the respondents, was a cleaner of the appellant and met with an accident on May 31, 1954, in consequence of which he died on that date. The application for compensation was resisted on many grounds. The appellant denied that he was the employer of Dastagir and contended that Dastagir was the employee of another person. He denied that Dastagir met with an accident during the course of his employment. While the respondents alleged that Dastagir was drawing a salary of Rs. 60 a month, the appellant alleged that the salary was only Rs. 30. All these contentions having been overruled by the Commissioner who was of the view that Dastagir was an employee of the appellant drawing a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Nagarchand Gujar and anr. Vs. Gopal Sakharam Belekar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant250; AIR1965Mys250; (1965)1MysLJ613
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a sale deed executed by him, his son and his nephew (defendant 3) on June 5, 1943, in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void, and for possession of the two lands conveyed under that sale deed.(2) The Court below made a decree that the sale of one of the two lands was void and that the sale of the other, was not. So it made a decree for possession only of that land which was declared to be void, and dismissed the suit in respect of the other.(3) Defendants 1and 2 are the appellants before us and challenge the decree made by the Civil Judge in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection to that part of the decree by which the Civil Judge dismissed the suit with respect to the other land.(4) The material facts are these:In the year 1925 the plaintiff and his brother, who is the father of defendant 3, created a simple mortgage in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Kempiah and anr. Vs. Girigamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant189; AIR1966Mys189
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.(1) This Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No.412/58 on the file of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, seeking declaration of title to and possession of the plaint schedule properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal to the Civil Judge, Mysore, the suit has been decreed. The defendants have preferred this second Appeal.(2) It is necessary to set out the genealogical tree denoting the relationship of parties to understand the plaintiffs' claim. Sidde Gowda and Kempe-gowda were the divided sons of Kale-Gowda. Sidde-Gowda had a son Manche Gowda alias Kotre Gowda. The Second defendant is he grandson of the aforesaid Manche Gowda by his son Vogi. The first defendant Kempiah is the son of the aforesaid Manchegowda.(3) Kempegowda had two sons Dodda Huchamari and Chikka Huchamari. Dodda Huchamari's wife is Giri and his son is one Manchiga. This Manchiga is the last male holder. Chikka Huchamari had a son Thimmiah whose widow is the first plaintiff Pinnamma....
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Kaverappa Vs. D. Sankannayya Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant214; AIR1965Mys214; 1965CriLJ225; ILR1964KAR1046; (1964)2MysLJ300
Somanath Iyer, J. (1) This is an appeal by the defendant who, at the relevant point of time, was a Sub-inspector of police in the then State of Coorg. When D.W. 1 the Circle Inspector of police at Merecara acquired information that two persons named Krishnan and Kuttappa had printed and circulated a pamphlet containing matters falling within the purview of section 124A and section 153A of the Penal Code, it appeared according to his evidence to him that steps should be taken for the collection of evidence so that a prosecution may be commenced in respect of those offences. He applied on May 31, 1955 to the First Class Magistrate, Mercara to investigate those offences since those offences being non-cognizable offences, such permission was necessary. It was on May 31, 1955, that the Magistrate accorded permission to investigate the offences which he presumably did under the provision of section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, and a case was registered as Crime No. 81of states19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›