Karnataka Court March 1965 Judgments
Shankarayya (G.M.) and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ15Kant; (1965)2MysLJ40
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. These are connected writ petitions. In these writ petitions, most of the contentions raised are common and hence it would be convenient to deal with them together. Excepting Writ Petitions No. 2574 of 1963 and No. 53 of 1964, the rest of the writ petitions were filed by officers, who before the reorganization of State were borne on the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the erstwhile State of Mysore. They stood allotted to the new State of Mysore under S. 115 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2574 of 1963 was recruited as an Assistant Conservator of Forests in 1953 in the State of Madras. At the time of the reorganization of the States, he was serving as an assistant to the District Forest Officer at South Kanara. After the reorganization, he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1964 was serving as an Assistant Conservator of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahamathunisa Begum Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant211; AIR1966Mys211
Hedge, J.(1) In this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for the following reliefs.'i. to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may this that the petitioner's promotion as District Educational Office should be deemed from 10-10-52 when the registered respondent was appointed as D.E.O and her promotion as Deputy Director be deemed to be from July 1957 when the 3rd respondent was so appointed and she should be reinstated as Deputy director in one of the posts of Deputy Directors by reverting the juniormost Deputy Director as D.E.O. passing order to that effect. ii. to issue a similar writ directing that the petitioner be paid the difference of pay between that of D.E.O and of headmistress between 10-10-52 to 28-7-54 the date when she was appointed as Dist. Educational Officer and he difference in pay between that of the Deputy Director from July 1957 when the 3rd respondent was so appointed and the pay of the...
Tag this Judgment!G.T. Venkataswami Reddy Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant55; AIR1966Mys55; (1965)1MysLJ488
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, initially he prayed for a writ of Prohibition or other suitable Writ or Order in the nature of a writ, prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (first respondent) from implementing its decision announced on 16-4-1964, granting a stage carriage permit to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (second respondent) on the route from Bangalore to Tirupathi. Objection was taken to the relief prayed for on the ground that appropriate relief to be asked for is one for quashing the decisions of the first respondent by the issue of a writ of Certiorari. In view of this objection, the petitioner, by means of I.A.No.6, sought and obtained permission to amend his petition by including an alternative prayer namely,'Or, in the alternative, if it is found for any reason that a Writ of Prohibition is not an appropriate and efficacious relief, this Hon'ble Court be...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudev Bhupal Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant92; AIR1966Mys92; ILR1965KAR840; (1965)1MysLJ780
Hegde, J.(1) In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction as the case may be, requiring the respondents and in particular, the second respondent as the Chairman of the Text Book Committee to review the books of the petitioner and place them for consideration of the Text Book Committee for being prescribed as text books for the concerned classes. The other reliefs prayed for in the petition really do not arise for consideration.(2) The petitioner claims to be the author of several books suitable for being prescribed as text books for several standards of Primary and High Schools, recognised by the Director of Public Instruction in Mysore, Bangalore. He states that several of his books had been prescribed as text books for school classes during the past ten years. On 5-11-1964 he submitted some books to the Chairman of the Text Book Committee for being considered by the Committee. According to him, he submi...
Tag this Judgment!Revanna Yeleri Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: ILR1965KAR340; (1966)IILLJ495Kant; (1965)1MysLJ758
ORDERSanthosh, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash, by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, the enquiry proceedings culminating in the order of the Government dated 19 January, 1962 dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the erstwhile Hyderabad State, was allotted, after the reorganization of States, to the Mysore State. In 1959, the petitioner was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Puttur subdivision in South Kanara district. On receipt of a anonymous petition alleging certain acts of corruption against the petitioner, the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, Bangalore, got the same enquired into by a police inspector of the Anti-corruption Department. The Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, thereafter submitted the report of the enquiry made by his Inspector to the Inspector-General of Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakumar Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: 1965CriLJ829
ORDERM. Santosh, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore, of an offence under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10/- and in default to suffer S. I., for one month.2. The charge against the petitioner was that he, being a driver of motor cycle bearing No. MYX 2000, on 6-9-1964 at about 5-50 P. M. at Kankanady Bendoor Well Road was found driving the same in the Public Road at a high speed and in a manner dangerous to the public and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The only witness examined in the case is P. W. 1, the Police Officer who was on traffic duty that evening. He has stated that he saw the said motor cycle being driver by the petitioner (accused) from Kankanady side towards Bendoor well in a high speed and in manner dangerous to the public. He also stated that the petitioner tried to over-take a lorry coming in the same direction without ...
Tag this Judgment!Srikantayya (L.) (Proprietor of S.E.L. Dry Cleaners) Vs. Puttaswami (M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ487Kant
Tukol, J.1. The petitioner who is the proprietor of S.E.L. Dry cleaners, Mysore, filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the City Magistrate, Mysore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44 of 1962 on 27 November, 1962 directing recovery of Rs. 205 towards compensation and penalty as being payable by him to respondent 1. Respondent 2 is the City Magistrate, while respondent 3 is the labour officer and appellate authority under the Mysore Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. 2. The material facts to appreciate the points at issue are as follows : Respondent 1 (who is hereinafter called the respondent) was an employee of the petition on a monthly salary of Rs. 50 from 17 February, 1955 and had been working as account clerk. The respondent was removed from service after he was served with a notice through a lawyer at the instance of the petitioner on 29 January, 1961 on the ground of negligence and unsatisfactory behaviou...
Tag this Judgment!L. Srikantaiah Vs. M. Puttaswamy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant133; AIR1966Mys133; [1968(17)FLR433]; (1968)2MysLJ392
Tukol, J.(1) The petitioner who is the Proprietor of S.E.L. Dry cleaners, Mysore, filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the City Magistrate, Mysore in Criminal Misc. 44/62 on 27-11-1962 directing recovery of Rs. 205 towards compensation and penalty as being payable by him to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the City Magistrate, while Respondent No. 3 is the Labour Officer and Appellate Authority under the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.(2) The material facts to appreciate the points at issue are as follows:--Respondent No. 1 (who is hereinafter called the respondent) was an employee of the petitioner on a monthly salary of Rs. 50 from 17-2-1955 and had been working as accounts clerk. The respondent was removed from service after he was served with a notice through a lawyer at the instance of the petitioner on 29-1-1961 on the ground of negligence and unsatisfactory behaviour. Against the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Shivogigowda Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ63Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In these writ petitions, identical relief are prayed for. The petitioners firstly wants this Court to strike down the recommendation made by respondent 2 - The Mysore Public Service Commission - under its No. G. 1365/63/64, dated 21 September, 1963, for appointment of candidates mentioned therein as Assistant Superintendents of Fisheries and Inspectors of Fisheries and further to issue a writ of prohibition to respondent 3 (the Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Government of Mysore, Bangalore), restraining him from giving effect to the recommendation made by respondent 2. 2. On 1 April, 1963 the Director of Fisheries sent a requisition to respondent 2 requesting it to make recommendation for filling up 25 posts of Assistant Superintendents of Fisheries and Inspectors of Fisheries, 4 of whom should belong to the backward classes, 4 from more backward classes, 4 from scheduled castes, 2 from scheduled tribes and the remaining 11 from other classes. The Public...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gopalakrishna Weaving Mills Vs. Labour Court, Hubli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ657Kant
Tukol, C.J. 1. The petitioner, who is an employer, has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed against him by the labour court at Hubli. 2. The labour court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,172.26 towards retrenchment compensation under S. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order was made on applications made by the workmen under S. 33C of the Act. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the labour court had no jurisdiction under S. 33C of the Act to order the recovery. 3. Section 33C provides for recovery of money due from an employer. The labour Court has mainly relied upon Sub-section (2) of S. 33C as giving jurisdiction to determine the amount due from the employer. In our opinion, the view taken by the labour court is wholly erroneous. All that Sub-section (2) provides is that : 'Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »