Karnataka Court August 1964 Judgments

Neminath Appayya Hanamannanavar Vs. Jamboorao Satappa Kocheri

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1966Kant154; AIR1966Mys154; (1965)1MysLJ442

Somnath Iyer, J. (1) An successful plaintiff who sued for specific performance of n agreement of sale executed by the defendant in his favour on July 20, 1958, under which he agreed to convey to the plaintiff two lands bearing survey Nos. 5 and 12 in the village of Pattihal in the District of Belgaum, measuring 41 acres and 26 guntas in the aggregate for a sum of Rs. 32,000 is the appellant before us. That agreement is Exhibit 32 which recited that out of the consideration for the sale, a sum of Rs. 2,000 was set off against an outstanding liability of the defendant on accounts, and that a postdated cheque for Rs. 5,000 bearing the date September 1, 1958, was also delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date of the agreement. The further recital was that the balance of Rs. 25,000 should be paid at the time of registration. The date fixed for performance was March 9, 1959.(2)The Plaintiff stated that he issued a notice to the Defendant on February 26, 1959 demanding performan...

State of Mysore Vs. Narayana Raghavendra Shirur

Court: Karnataka

Narayana Pai, J.1. This appeal against an order of acquittal arises out of a prosecution under the Factories Act. 2. The circumstances out of which the prosecution arose relate to a pit inside the factory in question, 12 feet long, 5 feet wide the 4 feet 10 inches deep, into which boiling soap used to get collected in the course of the manufacturing processes adopted and followed in the factory. It appears that it was necessary to empty the hot soap stock collected in the pit from time to time or at certain intervals so as to provide accommodation for further soap coming down from the plant. It appears that on a prior occasion, one of the workers in the factory had fallen into the hot soap when engaged in emptying the contents of the pit with a bucket. On that occasion, a note was made by the Inspector of Factories having jurisdiction over the factory to the effect that the accident could have been avoided had a proper and safe method been employed for removing the soap from the pit. S...

Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labo ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1965)ILLJ353Kant

ORDERK.S. Hegde, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by a common petitioner. Respondent 2 in each one of these petitions is an ex-employee of the petitioner. These petitions raise common questions of law and fact and hence they can be conveniently dealt with in one order. 2. In these petitions, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner complains that respondent 1 has refused to accord approval for the dismissal of his four workmen (respondent 2 in each of these petitions, who will be hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') on patently erroneous grounds and therefore he seeks to have those orders quashed. 3. Respondent 1 refused to accord the approvals prayed for under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on two grounds, viz; (i) the petitioner having cancelled the orders of dismissal of the 'workmen' made on 17 July 1963 was incompetent to dismiss them again on 28 July 1963 on the very grounds on which the previo...

The Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1965Kant295; AIR1965Mys295; (1965)1MysLJ287

K.S. Hegde, J. (1) These writ petitions are filed by a common petitioner. The second respondent in each one of these petitions is an ex-employee of the petitioner. These petitions raised common questions of law and fact and hence they can be conveniently dealt with in one order.(2) In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner complains that the first respondent has refused to accord approval for the dismissal of his four workmen (2nd respondent in each of these petitions, who will be hereinafter referred to as 'workman') on patently erroneous grounds and therefore he seeks to have those orders quashed.(3) The 1st respondent refused to accord the approvals prayed for under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on two grounds viz., (i) the petitioner having cancelled the orders of dismissal of the 'workmen' made on 17th July 1963 was incompetent to dismiss them again on 28th July 1963 on th...

Virabhadrappa Karisangappa Mannur and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1965Kant238; AIR1965Mys238; 1965CriLJ378; (1964)2MysLJ362

ORDER(1) The three petitioners were accused in C.C. No. 933/62 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ron.(2) The complainant and the accused are close relations. The charge against the accused was that they assaulted the complainant and caused him an injury and therefore they were guilty of offence punishable under sections 325 and 355 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.(3) It appears that the prosecution examined three witnesses somewhere in the month of July, 9163; but thereafter, on the 19th September 1963, both the complainant and the accused filed a joint application seeking the permission of the learned Magistrate to compound the offences. In the meanwhile, the prosecution made an application on the 19th of August 1963, for amending the charge from S. 325 to 326, I.P.C. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the 30th August 1963. It is then that the aforesaid joint application came to be made by both the complainant and the accused.(4) The l...

Mohamed Ghouse Vs. the State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1965CriLJ288

H. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. Appellant Bombay Ghouse alias Mohammad Ghouse of Bangalore City has been convicted of an offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 26 of 1962.2. The accusation against the appellant is that he caused the death of one Abdul Sattar by stabbing him with a Knife M. O. 1 in the early hours of 13th June 1962 in front of Sir Mirza Ismail Oval just opposite to Krishnarajendra Market of Bangalore. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Abdul Sattar was witnessing the 'Thamasha' in connection with the last day of Moharram on the night of 12/13th June 1962 in front of the City Market along with some of his friends, who are examined as prosecution witnesses near the City Market. It is stated that at about 1 a. m, on 13th June 1962 the appellant came along with a number of persons shouting 'din din' and pushed aside the p...

H.M. Kumaraswamy Vs. T.P.R. Rudraradhya

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1966Kant215; AIR1966Mys215; (1965)1MysLJ253

(1) This is a second appeal by the defendant in O. S. 329 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff at Tarikere. The decree passed against him by Munsiff has been confirmed on appeal by the Civil Judge at Chikkmagalur.(2) The facts leading to the filing of the still are no longer in dispute. A sister-in-law of the plaintiff respondent had conveyed an areca garden to the defendant appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,000. Simultaneously the defendant had entered into a karar or an agreement undertaking to reconvey the property if the said sum of Rs. 10,000 is paid to him any time before the expiry of five years after the sale to him. The right to obtain reconveyance under the said karar was assigned to the plaintiff by her sister-in-law. The defendant declined to execute reconveyance in plaintiff's favour on the plea among others that the right to obtain reconveyance was personal to the plaintiff's assignor and was not capable of being assigned to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff deposited the ...