Karnataka Court July 1965 Judgments
Canara Public Conveyance Company Ltd. Vs. Usman Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1965
Reported in: [1965(11)FLR247]; (1966)ILLJ826Kant; (1965)2MysLJ442
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 7 March, 1961 Usman Khan who is the respondent before us sustained injuries when he was driving a truck belonging to the Canara Public Conveyance Company, Ltd., which had employed him. It is undisputed that on account of a mechanical defect in the truck, one of its springs broke and caused the accident in which Usman Khan was involved. He was treated for his injuries in the Government Hospital at Chickmagalur between 7 and 11 March, 1961 when he was discharged. Thereafter he went to a medical practitioner in Puttur in the district of South Kanara and was under his treatment until 11 May, 1961. But eventually, notwithstanding all this treatment to which he was subjected, he lost completely the use of his right hand. It is in evidence that in consequence of the accident the third rib and the collar-bone were both fractured and that the bones which so broke never united. 2. As required by S. 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Usman Khan gave notice of the acci...
Tag this Judgment!The Gadag Cotton Sales Society Ltd. Vs. C.F. Angadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant104; AIR1967Mys104
Hegde, J.1. In this application, under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Belgaum Bench, in appeal B. 2 of 1963 on its file suffers from error or law apparent on the face of the records,2. The petitioner-Society was registered in 1922 under the provisions of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1912. The respondent was a member of that Society. On 20-10-1954, he applied to the petitioner-society for allotting him shares of the value of Rs. 150. On 30-10-1954, the Directors of the petitioner-society refused to allot him the shares asked for. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent raised a dispute under Section 54 of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1925. That dispute was referred to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator dismissed his suit holding that he had failed to make a written application for the allotment of shares and further that on the relevant date, he was not an agriculturist. Aggriev...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Susheela and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys194; 1966CriLJ917; (1965)2MysLJ498
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) At about 3-30 P.M. on August 27, 1962 Keshav, a head constable in Bidar town, transmitted of Police P.W.6, that Abdul Nabi on the invitation of a young woman Suseela, entered her house. Keshav stated that within ten or fifteen minutes the Superintendent of Police along with a Sub-Inspector, a lady constable and two panch witnesses arrived near the house in a van. It was said that when they entered the house they found one of the rooms bolted from inside and Suseela and Nabi came out of that room on their being asked to open the door. Suseela is accused 1 and Nabi is accused 2, and the charge brought against them before the District Magistrate was that they were guilty of an offence of prosecution carried on within 200 yards of an educational institution punishable under S.7(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 which will be referred to as the Act. (2) Five others, all of whom were women and who were in State of Mysore part of the ho...
Tag this Judgment!K. Panduranga and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Kant244; AIR1965Mys244; (1968)1MysLJ159
Hegde, J. (1) Common questions of law arise in these petitions. But for convenience sake we shall first take up for consideration W.P. No. 1653/63, The results of the other two writ petitions depend on the result of this writ petition. (2) W.P. No. 1653 of 1963: The petitioners herein were serving in the Revenue Department in the State of Madras till 1-11-1956. They were allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date of the States Reorganisation. Even before the States Reorganization they had been temporarily appointed as Deputy Tahsildars, but by the date of the States Reorganization, they had been reverted to a lower rank for want of posts of Deputy Tahsildars. The Ist petitioner was again appointed as Deputy Tahsildar on 12-12-1957, the 2nd and 3rd petitioner on 1-4-58 and the 4th petitioner on 25-7-58. Ever since then, they have continuously acted as Deputy Tahsildars till the date of filing of this petition. The 7th and 8th respondents, prior to the Reorganization of States, were...
Tag this Judgment!St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School and anr. Vs. Regina Alias Rosy M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ337Kant; (1966)1MysLJ341
Kalagate, J. 1. Kumari Regina alias Rosy Menezes, a teacher instituted Original Suit No. 163 of 1957 in the Court of District Munsif, Mangalore, against the two appellants claiming certain reliefs against them. Appellant 1 is St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School, Urva (which will hereafter be referred to as the school), represented by manager and correspondent Rev. Fr. T.A. Lobo (who will hereafter be referred to as the manager). Appellant 2 is Rev. Fr. T.A. Lobo. The trial dismissed her suit in substance. She, therefore, preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge of South Kanara who allowed the same and decreed her suit. Hence this appeal by the two defendants. 2. The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as headmistress of the school on 10 April 1949 which post she continued to occupy till 1 June 1955, when the manager, by his order, reduced her to the position of an assistant teacher. She, therefor, preferred an appeal to the District Educational Officer, South Kanara, who...
Tag this Judgment!M. Abdul Khader and anr. Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate-tribunal, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant6; AIR1967Mys6
Hegde, J.1. A common question of law, namely, whether the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore to be hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, (Respondent 1 in both the Writ Petitions) had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals in these cases, arises in these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. In both these petitions, the only relief proved for is that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Tribunal from hearing the appeal mentioned therein.2. Before proceeding to consider the question of law arising for decision in these cases, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts of these cases.3. The petitioner in W. P. No. 458/65. made an application on 19-6-1950 requesting the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, to alter the permit held by him, which authorised him io operate a service from Punganur to Hebbani border via Srinivasapur, Yeldur, and Mulbagal to one permitting him to operate his service from Punganur to Bangal...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tamappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mys71; 1967CriLJ565
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In the village of Chintanapally in the District of Gulbarga, there lived two brothers Chintalayya and Hanumappa. Hanumappa had 4 sons and they are the four appellants before us. Chintalayya had a daughter Gangavva who was married to a certain Maryappa. On April 20, 1962 sometime late in the evening, Maryappa was killed and his dead body was brought on April 21, 1962 to P. W. 18 Dr. Ramachandra who was a medical Officer in Gurmitkal at 8-30 A. M. He observed on that dead body two cut wounds behind the right ear, one punctured wound on the back of the neck and two cut wounds on the middle of the head. He also observed three multiple fractures on the frontal and parietal bones. In his opinion, Mariappa died in consequence of the injury to the head which produced shock and haemorrhage. 2. The prosecution case was that the four appellants before us who were the sons of Hanumappa and who had settled down in the village of Kandkur, 3 miles away from Chintanapally, had kill...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev (D.) Vs. Muniswami (K.)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1965
Reported in: [1966(12)FLR55]; (1966)ILLJ838Kant; (1965)2MysLJ376
ORDERHegde, J.1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to send for the records ending with the order of the presiding officer, labour court, Bangalore, in Application No. 30 of 1962 on his file, by issuing a writ of certiorari and quash the order in question. 2. Sri G. S. Ullal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order is liable to the struck down for two reasons, namely, (i) the labour court had no jurisdiction to go into the facts of retrenchment as the same was a disputed question; and (ii) the retrenchment put forward by the respondent, on the admitted facts of the case, does not amount to a retrenchment in law and therefore no retrenchment compensation could have been granted. 3. It is unfortunate that the respondent was not represented in this case. 4. The facts found by the labour court are these : The respondent was working as a weaver under the petitioner ever since 20 Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Shivalingappa Nagmoti Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ268Kant; (1965)2MysLJ347
ORDERSadasivayya, J.1. We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner at great length. We have also been taken through all the material proportions of the report made by the specially empowered authority and our attentions has been invited to many salient points set out in the petitioner's affidavit. 2. After careful consideration of the arguments and reference to the materials placed before us, we are unable to agree with his contentions that the findings of the specially empowered authority are either based on surmise, or that it is based on no evidence. We are unable to agree that this case is one of the type of Goel case : (1964)ILLJ38SC . 3. In our view, there is sufficient evidence on which the conclusions arrived at by the specially empowered authority, could be properly based. 4. We find no force in the argument that the reasonable opportunity contemplated by Art. 311 was denied by the fact of the non examination of one Shivappa. This person had not been cited as a witne...
Tag this Judgment!MuniruddIn (C.) Vs. Peirce Leslie and Co. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1965
Reported in: ILR1965KAR1049; (1966)ILLJ271Kant; (1965)2MysLJ179
ORDERHonniah, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition was working as a storekeeper under respondent 1 from 1952. Respondent 1 took disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for certain alleged misconduct and dismissed him as a result of the enquiry held on 20 August, 1962. The petitioner thereupon presented an appeal under S. 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Madras Act 36 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act to respondent 2, who was the prescribed appellate authority under that sub-section. Respondent 2 by his order dated 24 November, 1962 dismissed that appeal of the petitioner. This writ petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the said order of respondent 2 to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order as the Court deems fit. 2. The material facts are these. On 6 April, 1962 respondent 1 received a complaint against the petitioner that he was insubordinate and was negligen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »