Karnataka Court February 1965 Judgments
Syed Hassan Ali Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Kant283; AIR1965Mys283; ILR1965KAR274; (1965)IILLJ583Kant; (1965)1MysLJ422
Santosh, J. 1. In this application under Art. 226 of the 226, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash by the issue of a writ of certiorari or and other appropriate writ or order, as the case may be, the orders of the Inspector-General of Police (respondent 2) dated 17 December, 1960 dismissing the petitioner from service, and the order of the Government (respondent 1) dated 21 March, 1962 confirming the said order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner was a sub-inspector of police at Gogi in Gulbarga district. On 20 November, 1957 a memo of charges was given to the petitioner alleging that he had obtained illegal gratification from villagers. The petitioner I alleged to have taken illegal gratification from the five persons mentioned in the said charge-memo. On 26 June, 1958 a second memo of charges was issued against the petitioner alleging gross negligence in the discharge of his duties and accepting illegal gratification. The first eight counts related to gross neglig...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkat Rao Vs. State by the Registrar of Companies, Mysore, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mys274; [1966]36CompCas562b(Kar); 1965CriLJ654; (1965)1MysLJ265
ORDER(1) The petitioner was appointed voluntary liquidator of a company called Rural Commercial Syndicate Ltd., by a special resolution of the Company dated 2nd November 1958. Under S. 551 of the Companies Act of 1956 he had to file statements mentioned in the section with the Registrar of Companies periodically. It appears he was filing such statements regularly until he committed default in statements relating to the period 2-5-1963 to 1-11-1963 which was due to be filed with the Registrar on or before 1-1-1964. After issuing notice to him to rectify the omission, the Registrar instituted criminal prosecution against him before the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore.(2) The petitioner admitted his default and pleaded guilty, but placed certain circumstances before the Magistrate on the strength of which he prayed that he be pardoned. It also appears that the necessary statement was filed by him after the presentation of the complaint but before the Magistrate came to di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›