Karnataka Court November 1965 Judgments
M.i. Nadaf Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant77; AIR1967Mys77; (1966)1MysLJ39
Hegde, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 229 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent requiring it to accept the petitioner's application for being recruited as a Munsiff in the Mysore Judicial Services and proceed on the basis that the said application is a valid application.2. The material facts of the case are very few. On 25-2-1965, a notification dated 23-2-1965 came to be published in the Official Gazette at the instance of the Second respondent calling for applications for a competitive examination as detailed in appendix I thereof, for recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the Mysore Judicial Service. It was also notified that written examination would be held in the month of April 1965 and viva voce would be held in April and/or May 1965. A copy of that notification is marked as Annexure 'A'.3. In response to that notification, the petitioner submitted his application on 24-3-1965. The Second respondent by its Order dated 8-4-...
Tag this Judgment!Karnakar Mangesh Desai Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant317; AIR1966Mys317; ILR1965KAR1167; (1966)1MysLJ72
Govinda Bhat, J.(1) This Writ Petition, preferred by an employee of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter called 'the Corporation' is directed against Resolution No. 436 dated 19th October, 1964 passed by the said Corporation. The petitioner has challenged the said resolution, hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned resolution' on the ground that it is the ultra vires of S. 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950(Central Act 64 of 1950) hereinafter called the 'Act'. This is the main ground on which the impugned resolution is repugnant to the directions dated 1st August, 1961 given by the State Government to respondent No. 2 under S. 34. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary by briefly narrate the relevant facts which are not in dissolute. Petitioner was an employee in the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and after formation of the new State as a Government employee on 1st January 1957. On 24th October 1959 the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Annaji Vasudev Dongarkar and ors. Vs. Venkatesh Ramchandra Deshpande a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant111; AIR1967Mys111; (1966)1MysLJ77
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to get re-grant of the lands resumed to the Government under the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Watan Abolition Act').2. The plaintiffs brought a suit praying for a declaration that they were entitled to obtain re-grant of the suit lands and for injunction restraining the defendants from recovering rents from the tenants of those lands and exercising any acts of ownership or management in respect of those lands adversely to plaintiffs. Having failed in the suit the plaintiffs have come up in appeal.3. The following facts are undisputed between the parties :4. The defendants are the Watandars of the family of Kamatanurkar Deshpande. The suit lands bearing R. S. Nos. 334/1 and 335 in Karoshi village, Chikodi Taluka, Belgaum District and certain other lands were Paragana Watan lands. ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed YasIn Vs. Syed Shaha Mohd. Hussain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant37; AIR1967Mys37
ORDER1. The defendant in the lower Court is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 370 from the petitioner. In the suit, the respondent examined one witness and closed his case. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court to examine the respondent (plaintiff) as a witness on his behalf the trial Court rejected his application. The petitioner has filed this revision questioning the correctness of the said order.2. Shri Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learn-ed counsel for the petitioner, contends that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to reject the application of the petitioner praying that the plaintiff should be examined as a witness on his behalf. He argues that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Evidence Act, which prohibits a party from calling any person and examining him as his witness. The Court below was bound to summon the plaintiff as a witness on behalf of the petitioner. The...
Tag this Judgment!N. Narayana Kamath Vs. the Director of Food Supplies in Mysore, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant1; AIR1967Mys1
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of milling beaten rice with a 5 H. P. motor within the Sanur Panchayat area of Karikal Taluk, South Kanara District. On his application to the Deputy Commissioner of Smith Kanara (Respondent 2) for grant of a rice mill licence under Section 6 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Central Act 21 of 1958) hereinafter wiled the 'The Act' a licence being licence No. 151 of 1963 was granted on 15-8-1963. On 6-6-1964, respondent 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his licence should not be cancelled on the ground of having obtained the licence on misrepresentation that the petitioner was an 'existing rice mill' owner when in fact he was not. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice and by Order dated 13-7-1964, respondent 2 revoked the licence, the ground for revocation was that the petitioner was only running a 'Phova' (beaten rice) mill at the commencement of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›