Karnataka Court September 1964 Judgments
P. Bhuvaneswaraiah and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant170; AIR1965Mys170; (1964)2MysLJ470
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) The petitioners, in these 54 petitions, who are building owners in this State, seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Mysore to refrain from enforcing on them the provisions of the Mysore Buildings Tax Act, 1962 (Mysore Act No. 4 of 1963)(to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). after declaring the same as void and inoperative.(2) The 'Act' received the assent of the Governor on the 8th of January 1963 and it came into force on the 1st January 1964. Under S. 4 of the 'Act' all buildings as defined in the 'Act', in the towns mentioned in Schedule I to the 'Act', stand charged with 'Building Tax' in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule II to the 'Act'. The 'Act' provides a machinery for quantification of the charge and for the collection of the tax assessed. In the 'Act' there are provisions for appeal, second appeal and revision. The 'Act' confers on the Government power to make rules to carry out the purposes of the 'Act'. Accordingly rules...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Dhariwal Vs. Bherulal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant272; AIR1965Mys272; (1964)2MysLJ352
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.(1) In O.S. No. 662 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff at Kolar Gold Fields a suit was brought by a certain Madanlal, who was then a minor, by his next friend, his mother, against his two brothers for the recovery of a certain sum of money said to be due to the plaintiff. A decree was made in that suit in favour of the plaintiff and that decree directed the realisation of the amount of the decree by the sale of the joint family properties belonging to the two defendants in that suit. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had secured an attachment of certain properties. After the termination of the suit defendant-2 in the suit, presented an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an Order that the properties attached should be released from attachment. In support of that application the assertion made by that Defendant was that the suit properties were his separate properties not liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decr...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Sharma Vs. K.S. Ramachandra Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant248; AIR1965Mys248; (1964)2MysLJ348
1. The appellant filed original suit 59 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 13,234-20nP, said to be due on dishonoured cheques. He purported to present the plaint under Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and claimed the benefit of the summary procedure provided under the said order. According to Rule 1 of the order, it applies only to (1) the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, (2) any District Court and (3) any other Court specially empowered in that behalf by the State Government. The defendant-respondent raised the objection that the Civil Judge's Court was not a Court specially empowered as aforesaid. The plaintiff appellant, after taking some adjournments to produce the necessary or relevant notification of the State Government, failed to produce any such notifications. Hence the Civil Judge taking the view that his Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such summary suits in the absence of specia...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Nanjappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant66; AIR1966Mys66; (1965)1MysLJ300
(1) This is an appeal arising out of land acquisition proceedings by the claimant who is dissatisfied with the enhancement made by the Court below of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.(2) The land which was acquired measured 884 square yards, and, as the Land Acquisition Officer himself stated in his award, it was situate in a very important locality inside the City of Bangalore. One part of the property was bounded by the sample Road which connects the Residency Road with the corporation building. The land was acquired for the purpose of laying out a new road connecting the sample Road with another road beyond. The acquired property formed part of the compound of the claimant's bungalow. By reason of the acquisition, two triangular bits were severed from the compound was a narrow strip, one part of which was bounded by the sample Road.(3) The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 10 a square yard which was enhanced by the District Judge to Rs. 12....
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Murugappa Mudaliar Rathina Mudaliar and Sons (by M. Muniswami, Pa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: (1965)ILLJ489Kant; (1965)2MysLJ73
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. In this petition, under Arts. 236 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to call for the records of the proceeding in Reference No. 14 of respondent 3 and quash the award made by him on 12 August, 1963, published in the Mysore Gazette dated 3 October 1963, by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. The petitioner is the employer and respondent 1 is his ex-employee. The petitioner terminated the services of respondent 1 as per his notice dated 27 June, 1959 with effect from 15 August, 1959. 3. Respondent 1 unsuccessfully pursued several remedies against the petitioner claiming reinstatement or in the alternative retrenchment compensation. It is not necessary to refer to those proceedings as they have no bearing on the points at issue in this case. Suffice it to say that respondent 4 took up his cause and moved the State Government to refer the dispute to the labour court (respondent 3) under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes ...
Tag this Judgment!Dassappa and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant224; AIR1965Mys224; (1964)2MysLJ342
T.K. Tukol, J. (1) This is a petition under S. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure made under the following circumstances : The two petitioners were respectively Accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No. 1769 of 1962 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Bangalore, in which they were tried along with one Venkatappa (Accused No. 2) for offences punishable under Ss. 457 and 380, I.P.C. All of them were convicted of both the offences and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on each count, the sentences being made to run concurrently. The petitioners and Venkatappa filed Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1963 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The appeal was heard by the fourth Additional Sessions Judge who acquitted Venkatappa of both the charges and the petitioners of the offence under S. 457 of the Indian Penal Code. He confirmed the conviction of the petitioners the sentence to one of Rigorous Imprisonment for four months.Against this order of conviction and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Kishta Bai and ors. Vs. Marthand Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant278; AIR1965Mys278; (1965)1MysLJ132
(1) The sole question argued in the appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of Survey No. 17 was barred by limitation.(2) Suit No. 37/1 of 1953-54 was instituted on 15-9-1953 by one Kishtabai against seven defendants for possession of certain properties and other consequential reliefs. Kishtabai compromised with the first four defendants on 11-2-1954 in respect of certain properties and a decree was drawn up between the parties in terms of the compromise. The suit was continued as against defendants 5 to 7 who are the contesting respondents in the present appeal. It is therefore sufficient to restrict the narration of facts to the subject matter of dispute in this appeal.One Dattatraya was the last owner of the suit property comprising Survey No. 17 of Kollur village in Gulbarga District. During his minority, his mother Malsabai sold the land to one Deoji in 1328 Fasli (1918-19) representing that it was her own property. The land was mutated in the name of Deoj...
Tag this Judgment!Dasappa and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ372
T.K. Tukol, J.1. This is a petition under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure made under the following circumstances : The two petitioners were respectively Accused Nos, 1 and 3 in C. C. No. 1789 of 1962 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Bangalore, in which they were tried along with one Venkatappa (Accused No, 2) for offences punishable under Sections 437 and 380, I. P. C. All of them were convicted of both the offences and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on each count, the sentences being made to run concurrently. The petitioners and Venkatappa filed Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1963 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The appeal was heard by the fourth Additional Sessions Judge who acquitted Venkatappa of both the charges and the petitioners of the offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. He confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence to one of Rigorous Imp...
Tag this Judgment!Wadi Stone Marketing Company (Private) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ32Kant; (1964)2MysLJ169
Hegde, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting question of law on which the judicial opinion is sharply divided. Wadi Stone Marketing Company (Private), Ltd., has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may be pleased to call for, by the issue of a write of certiorari or other appropriate write or direction, as the case may be, the proceedings of respondents 1 and 2 culminating in the order dated 3 April, 1962, marked as Ex. N in the case, and quash the same. It has further prayed for a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents requiring them not to take any action against the petitioner-company or its directors or officers in the matter of realization of the alleged contribution due to the provident fund. 2. In the course of his argument Sri S. K. Venkataranga Ayyangar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, pressed for acceptance two contentions, namely (i) on a true understanding of the facts of the case, it w...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasayya G.V. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1964
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ156Kant
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. The petitioner was on Assistant Engineer at Shimoga in May 1959. On a complaint by one N. K. Mohamed a contractor, to the effect that in connexion with the check measuring and the passing of bills in respect of some works done by the said contractor, the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 50, a trap had been laid against the petitioner on May 13, 1959. A prima facie case having been made out on investigation, a departmental enquiry was thereafter held. The charge which was framed at that departmental enquiry (vide Ex. C) was that he had been caught red-handed immediately after the receipt of the said bribe amount of Rs. 50. This departmental enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director of Efficiency Audit and Anti-corruption who had been appointed as the specially Empowered Authority under rule 11(2) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the C. C. A. Rules). The petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »