Karnataka Court February 1965 Judgments
Municipal Borough, Bijapur Vs. Gundawan (M.N.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1965
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ26Kant
Hegde, J. 1. These are applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution. They arise from the decision of the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Bijapur, in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 on his file. The said learned magistrate was constituted as the 'authority' under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act to hear and decide all claims arising under Ss. 12 and 14 of the Act in the district of Bijapur. He will be hereinafter referred to as the 'authority.' 2. Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 were disposed of by one common order. That order was assailed on various grounds which will be set out presently. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case material for our present purpose are these. The respondents are borne on the staff of the Bijapur Municipal Borough. They work in the octroi department of that borough. They claimed overtime allowance under the provisions of the Act from 1 April, 1955 to 31 March, 1958. ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkatachalapathi and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Inspector, Intelligen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC894(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions assail the constitutionality or validity of section 28-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. The said section - to the provisions of which we shall make a detailed reference later - was introduced into the principal Act by the Mysore Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1961, on 1st December, 1961. The section as originally introduced had six sub-sections. The first empowered the State Government to establish check posts or erect barriers at such place or places in the State as may be notified if it considers necessary to do so, with a view to prevent or check evasion of tax under the Act. Sub-section (2) provided, among other things, that the owner or person in charge of a goods vehicle should, in addition to a goods vehicle record or a trip sheet, carry with him a document called a bill of sale or a delivery note containing the prescribed particulars and produce the same before the officer in charge of the check post or ba...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Borough, Bijapur Vs. M.N. Gundawan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Kant317; AIR1965Mys317; (1965)1MysLJ461
Hegde, J.(1) These are applications under Article 227 of the Constitution. They arise from the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, IInd Court, Bijapur in Mis. Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 on his file. The said learned Magistrate was constituted as the 'Authority' under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' to hear and decide al claims arising under Ss. 12 and 14 of the 'Act' in the District of Bijapur. He will be hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority'.(2) Mis. Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 were disposed of by one common order. That order was assailed on various grounds which will be set out presently.(3) Briefly stated the facts of the case material for our present purpose are these: The respondents are borne on the staff of the Bijapur Municipal Borough. They work on the Octroi Department of that Borough. They claimed overtime allowances under the provisions of the 'Act' from 1-4-1955 to 31-3-1958. Their claim wa...
Tag this Judgment!Made Gowda (D.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: ILR1965KAR513; (1969)IILLJ345Kant; (1965)2MysLJ490
ORDERSanthosh, J. 1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ directing the quashing of the order of the respondent (Government of Mysore) No. PWD 110 DAF 58 dated 16 September 1961. 2. The Petitioner was working as a sub-overseer in No. 2 subdivision, Sugarcane Cess Fund Division, Mandya. He was placed under suspension on 7 July 1959 and the respondent directed that disciplinary proceeding should be instituted against him under Mysore Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the rules) A joint enquiry was directed against the petitioner, Sri Narayanaswami, Executive engineer and Sri M. Chandrasekhar, Junior Engineer of the Sugarcane Cass Fund Division, Mandya. The respondent appointed the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, Bangalore, as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer framed a charge against the petitioner and served...
Tag this Judgment!D. Made Gowda Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant220; AIR1966Mys220; [1966(12)FLR183]
M. Santhosh, J. (1) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ directing the quashing of the order of the respondent (Government) of Mysore) No. PWD 110 DAF 58 dated 16th September 1961.(2) The petitioner was working as a Sub-Governor in No. 2 Sub-Division, Sugar Cane Cess Fund Division Mandya. He was placed Under suspension on 7-7-1959 and the respondent directed that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against him under Mysore Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1957(which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') A joint enquiry was directed against the petitioner by Shri S. Narayanaswamy, Executive Engineer and Sri M. Chandrasekhar Junior Engineer of the Sugar Cane Cess Fund Division Mandya. The respondent appointed the special Officer, Efficiency Enquiry Officer framed a charge against the petitioner and served the same on him. The charge against the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Baswanath Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys71; 1966CriLJ267; (1965)1MysLJ365
ORDER(1) An important question whether the Court has power to grant what is called 'anticipatory bail' arises for consideration in this revision case. (2) The Tahsildar, Bhalki, lodged a complaint on 23-1-1964 with the police at Dhanura that while the Patwari of Malchapur was collecting revenue, the respondents before this Court, abused the Patwari and assaulted him with shoes and thereby obstructed the public servant from discharging his duties. The police registered a case against the respondents under S. 353 I.P.C. and sent the first information report to the Magistrate. (3) Fearing that they might be arrested by the police, the respondents appeard before the Firs Class Magistrate, Bhalki, on 20-3-1964 and made an application praying that they might be released on bail. This application appears to have been opposed by the Prosecutor. The learned Magistrate passed an order on the same day as follows: 'Accused persons are released on Bail on their executing P and S bonds in the sum of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madivalappa Channappa Hulgur and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ672
D.M. Chandrasekhar, J.1. The two accused in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1963 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, have filed this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed on them. Both of them were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused 1 was also convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. But this sentence was directed to run concurrently with the sentence for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C.2. The case against the accused was that both of them shot at Channabasappa (P.W.3), with a D.B.B.L. Gun and a pistol respectively and thereby attempted to murder him. The prosecution case is briefly as follows: On 19-2-1963 about an hour after sunrise, Irappa, (P.W. 2), his brother Channabasappa (P.W. 3) and their servant Mushappa (P.W. 7) were going in Marewad-Narendra Road from Marewad villa...
Tag this Judgment!Murgeppa Veerabhadrappa Vs. Rachappa Veerabhadrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant11; AIR1966Mys11; (1965)1MysLJ532
(1) In this second appeal, this Court is called upon to determine he true scope of the expression 'some part of the principal money secured thereby or some interest on such money has been paid', found in the proviso to the third column of Art.183 of the Limitation Act, the question arising for decision being whether the claim made in the execution petition which has given rise to this appeal, is barred by time.(2) The material facts of the case are these. Respondent as Decree-holder obtained a decree against the appellant and two others in Summary Suit No. 299 of 1944 on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. The decree in question was passed on 19th August 1944. The application for execution with which we are concerned in this case was filed on 21st June 1957. The judgment debtor No.3 paid to the Decree-holder on 25th June 1947 a sum of Rs. 1,000 and another sum of Rs. 700 on 18th August 1949. The question that arises for decision is, whether these payments can be said to keep al...
Tag this Judgment!Seshadri (E.V.) and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: ILR1965KAR282; (1965)1MysLJ392
ORDERHombe Gowda, C.J. 1. In these two petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the State fixing the seniority of respondent 2 above them in the revised second provisional inter-State seniority list and have sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Government order dated 20 July, 1963 bearing No. GAD 20 IGS 62 placing respondent 2 above C. L. Subba Rao, serial No. 1 in the provisional inter-State seniority list of Assistant Engineers, by which it is done. 2. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed before us, it is necessary to set out a few facts which are almost undisputed. E. V. Seshadri, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1963, was appointed as a surveyor in the Public Works Department of the erstwhile State of Mysore in 1941. He was selected as a probationary Assistant Engineer in 1945 and was appointed as an Assi...
Tag this Judgment!E.V. Seshadri Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant31; AIR1966Mys31; (1967)ILLJ42Kant
ORDER(1) In these two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the State fixing the seniority of the second respondent above them in the revised second provisional Inter-state Seniority list and have sought for the issue of a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Government Order dated 20th July 1963 bearing No. GAD 20 IGS. 62 placing the second respondent above Sri C.L. Subba Rao, serial No. 1 in the Provisional Inter-State Seniority list of Assistant Engineers by which it is done.(2) In order to appreciate the arguments addressed before us, it is necessary to set out, a few facts which are almost undisputed. E.V. Seshadri, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1963 was appointed as a Surveyor in the Public Works Department of the erstwhile State of Mysore in 1941. He was selected as a Probationary Assistant Engineer in 1945 and was appointed as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »