Karnataka Court July 1964 Judgments
Narayana Murthy Srinivasa Murthy and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant22; AIR1966Mys22; (1965)IILLJ508Kant; (1965)1MysLJ435
Sadasivayya, J. 1. The three petitioners were, prior to 1 November, 1956, the date on which the Reorganization of States came into effect, serving as permanent overseers in the former State of Bombay. From what has been stated in the affidavit which has been filed by the petitioners in support of their petition and has been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, there were two categories of overseers in Bombay. These two categories were referred to as the Subordinate Service of Engineers (S.S.E.). One category was known as the temporary establishment; it consisted of persons who were qualified as holders of either a diploma in Civil Engineering, or a degree in Engineering. The minimum qualification which had been prescribed for being eligible to be admitted into the temporary establishment was the possession of a diploma in Civil Engineering. In the case of the persons who possessed the higher qualification of a degree in Engineering, a benefit was g...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Hanamant Nagappa Gavada of Hattarwad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant150; AIR1965Mys150; 1965CriLJ737; (1964)1MysLJ529
H. Hombe Gowda, C.J. (1) Respondent Hanamant Nagappa Gavada of Hattarwad was put on his trial for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The charge against the respondent was that on the 2nd day of February 1963 at about 4 p.m. he assaulted one Appayya Kallappa Gavada of Hattarwad with the sickle (M.O. 2) and inflicted a number of injuries to him which resulted in his death and was, therefore, liable to answer the charge under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial the learned Judge held that the respondent was guilty of an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, who accepted the entire evidence of the prosecution, acquitted the respondent of he charge under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Sarwade and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant47; AIR1965Mys47
Chandrashekhar, J. (1)In these two writ petitions, the petitioner G.N. Sarwade and N.B. Patil, have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government, (i) to confirm their appointments as Tahsildars with effect from 24-9-1958 and 17-9-1958 respectively; (ii) to fix their ranks above respondents 2 to 107 in the seniority list of Tahsildars and (iii) to consider their cases for promotion to class I posts over and above the cases of respondents 2 to 107.(2) Respondent 1 is the state of Mysore, and respondents 2 to 107 are officers in the Mysore Administrative Service, who according to the petitioners, are still officiating as Tahsildars.(3) The following facts are undisputed between the parties :--The posts of Tahsildars are class II posts in the Mysore Administrative Service. The petitioners are among the fifty officials selected by the Mysore Public Service Commission under the Mysore Tahsildars and Block Development Officers (Recruitment) Rules, 1958, issued under No...
Tag this Judgment!D. Cawasji and Co. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MysLJ510; [1964]15STC894(Kar)
Hegde, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a declaration that the State of Mysore has no authority to levy and collect sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', on its sales of arrack and special liquor and that the proviso to section 5(3)(a) read with section 19 of the Act, purporting to give such an authority, is beyond the competency of the State Legislature and unconstitutional on the grounds more fully set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 2. This petition came up for admission before us on 26th June, 1964. Act that time, in the light of the argument advanced before us, we concentrated our attention only on section 19 of the Act. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 19 does not purport to levy any tax on the sales in question; it merely authorises the State Government to collect tax on those sales on the assumption that those sale...
Tag this Judgment!J.A. Dalmet Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant109; AIR1965Mys109; (1964)2MysLJ59
Hegde, J.(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 18-2-1963 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dharwar.(2) The facts relevant for our present purpose are as follows : The petitioner is a Forest Contractor. The Divisional Forest Officer, Dharwar invited tenders for sale of forest coupes specified in the tender notice dated 5-6-1962. The petitioner was one of the tenderers and his tender was accepted in respect of some coupes. One of the terms stipulated in the tender notice is that 25 per cent of the price should be deposited by the successful tendered within 30 days from the date of intimation of the acceptance of the tender or before the signing of the contract and the balance amount should be paid in three installments as set out in the letter of Divisional Forest Officer, Dharwar dated 26-7-1962.The petitioner was also required to deposit the security a...
Tag this Judgment!H.A.K. Rao Vs. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant112; AIR1965Mys112; (1964)1MysLJ386
Sadasivayya, J. (1) The Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by Profession and is a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). The respondent is the Council of the said Institute. The respondent is the Council of the said Institute. The Institute is a creature of The Chartered Accountants Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). From what has been stated in the affidavit of the petitioner, it would appear that the election to the Central Council and the Regular Councils is due to take place in the month of August 1964 and that the Petitioner is a prospective candidate for the Central Council. Exhibit 1 is an announcement dated 22nd February 1964, issued by the President of the Institute. It pertains to the forthcoming elections to the Central and Regional Councils. The relevant portion of that announcement is as follows:'IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT* * * * * *Members' attention is invited to Regulation 54 A of the Charte...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishnapur Mutt, Udipi and anr. Vs. P. Gopalakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Kant65; AIR1967Mys65
1. The appellant-Mutt filed against the respondent Original Suit No. 193 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsiff at Mangalore for recovery of arrears of mulgeni rent for 5 years claimed as due from the respondent at the rate of 19 muras of Kuchige rice plus enhanced assessment and half the cess payable in respect of the holding. The mulgeni is an ancient one, the original document in respect of which is not available. The respondent contended that though originally the rent stipulated was 19 muras of rice, it had been long ago, during the life time of his grandfather Venkappiah, permanently commuted into cash rent of Rs. 28-8-0 per year. He accepted his liability to pay enhanced assessment and half the cess, although before the institution of the suit he appears to have disputed his liability in respect of the latter. He also denied the plaintiff's right to recover interest on the ground that the plaintiff had unlawfully refused to receive rent tendered by him at the above commuted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›