Karnataka Court August 1965 Judgments
Narayana Kamath (S.) Vs. Ganapathi Kamath and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ266Kant
Hegde, J.1. In this writ petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order passed by respondent 2 in Sl. No. 8 of 1963 on his file by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. Serial No. 8 of 1963 on the file of respondent 2 was an application made by the petitioner under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of respondent 2 for dismissal of respondent 1 which had been ordered on 25 March, 1963. Respondent 2 refused to accord the approval prayed for. Hence this petition. 3. The material facts of the case are these : Respondent 1 was a checking inspector serving under the petitioner. He was charged with as many as five items of misconduct and in respect of those charges, an enquiry, was held by the petitioner. At the enquiry, the petitioner came to the conclusion that respondent 1 was guilty of those charges. Therefore, he dismissed respondent 1 from service after complying with the requirements of the law and, thereafter, ap...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Naik Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR437]; (1967)IILLJ624Kant
Hegde, J. 1. In this writ petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner invokes the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court and prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order of respondent 1 in D. Dis. S. E. & A.C. No. 37 of 1962 on his file as that order suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and, further, in dealing with that case, respondent 1 did not exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with provisions contained in S. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The material facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner was an employee under respondent 2. There is dispute between the parties as to the length of his service under respondent 2. On October 20, 1962, it is alleged that one of the partners of respondent 2 firm directed the petitioner to attend to certain work. According to respondent 2, the petitioner refused to do that work, and, in the course of exchange of words, ...
Tag this Judgment!Banasettappa Laljichikkanna Vs. District Registrar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant310; AIR1966Mys310; (1965)2MysLJ733
Tukol, J.(1) The petitioner by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the District Registrar in Registration Application No. 3 of 1962-63 and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ directing him to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing orders for registration of the document.(2) It appears that respondent 2 presented a sale deed purported to have been executed by the petitioner for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore City. The petitioner denied having executed the document. The Sub-Registrar accepted his contention and declined to register it. Being aggrieved by that order, respondent 2 filed an application before the District Registrar under Section 73 of the India Registration Act to have the document registered. Then the District Registrar held an enquiry as required by Section 74 and passed the impugned order.(3) The petitioner has placed before us two grievan...
Tag this Judgment!Siddagondappa Gurappa Koppad and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant339; AIR1966Mys339; 1966CriLJ1462; (1965)2MysLJ656
(1) In this Writ Petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of the Orders made, by the State Government under S. 50 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951(Bombay Act XXII of 1951), to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' on 22-10-1960, 31-5-1961, 18-12-1961, 22/25-6-1962, 31-12-1962 and 10-7-1963. But at the time of the hearing of this petition Sri V.S. Mallimath the learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the order dated 22-10-1960. Therefore all that we have to consider is whether the remaining orders are ultra vires of the powers of the State Government as contended by Sri Mallimath.(2) As per the notification dated 22-10-1960, the Government issued two Orders. They are marked as Exhibit 'A' an 'B' in the case. They read as follows:'Notification No. HD. 155 PEG 60 dated, Bangalore 22nd October 1960 Assvija 30 Saka Era 1882. Whereas the Government of Mysore is of the opinion that Yakkundi village in Bijapur District is...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Sivashankar Murigeppa Mamadapur and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys173; 1966CriLJ779; (1965)2MysLJ512
ORDER(1) The sole question that arise for decision in this reference by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar is whether a husband can raise a plea that his wife has been living in adultery since the date of the Order for maintenance, during the course of the proceedings for enforcement of the order of whether he should file a separate application for cancellation of the order.(2) The facts leading to this reference are not in dispute. The respondent Shantadevi filed an application on 25-2-1962 against her husband Shivasankar for maintenance on the ground that her husband had neglected and refused to maintain her by driving her out of house. While denying this allegation, the husband pleaded that his wife had been living in adultery and that she was not entitled to any maintenance. On the date of hearing the husband remained absent and an ex parte order allowing maintenance at Rs. 30 per month was passed in favour of the wife on 13-8-1963. The husband's application for setting a...
Tag this Judgment!Seethamma and Ors. Vs. Benedict D'Sa and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mys11; 1967CriLJ216; (1966)1MysLJ576
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On September 6. 1963. at about 5-15 p.m. at a point on the Kulur Ferry Road in Mangalore opposite to the P.W.D Stores a young boy named Padmanabha who was riding a bicycle and proceeding from the South to the North met with his death in consequence of serious in furies to his skull P.W 3 the Resident Medical Officer. Government Wenlock Hospital. Mangalore. to whom Padmanabha was taken and on whose body P.W 3 conducted the post-mortem examination on September 6, 1963. observed during the post-mortem that Padmanabha's skull had been fractured on both sides and that his spleen and liver had both been lacerated. His opinion was that Padmanabha died as a result of the skull having been crushed.2. On November 2, 1963. four persons claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of Padmanabha made a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for an award that they should be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Mehtab Ali Vs. the City Municipality Gulbarga and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant127; AIR1967Mys127
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner's counsel at the time of the hearing, asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent requiring it not to levy any octroi duty on the fruits brought by him into the Gulbarga Municipal area, in the course of his trade The other reliefs prayed for in the petition were not pressed.2. The petitioner is a merchant having his place of business in the market area of the Gulbarga Town. He is dealing in fresh fruits. According to him, he purchases fresh fruits from outside the Municipal area and brings them to Gulbarga town for sale in his shop. He deals in Sithaphal, Bannana, Moosambi, Plantains, Mangoes. Jam, Jambun, Apple, Orange Grape, Pinapple, Melons and Water-melons. The fruits brought by him into the Municipal limits of the Gulbarga town were neither canned, tinned, bottled, boxed or cartooned. The facts stated above are not disputed by the respondents. All that we have to see is, wheth...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Revanna Vs. Suseelamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant165; AIR1967Mys165; (1966)1MysLJ44
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This appeal is by a husband whose application for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Civil Judge. 2. The marriage between the two spouses was admittedly solemnized in March 1955. While according to the husband they lived together as man and wife for a period of two years thereafter, the wife staled in her statement of objections that they lived together for a short time under the same roof During the course of her evidence she stated that they so lived for about a year 3. On the allegation that sometime during the year 1958, the wife went to her parents but never returned despite many efforts made by the husband to get her back, he sought a decree for restriction of conjugal rights. 4. The defence to that application was manifold. The husband was charged with incapacity for consummation of the marriage. It was nest said that he attempted to commit sodomy on the wife and that he imputed unchastity to her. That he commenced manhandling he...
Tag this Judgment!Christine Pais Vs. K. Ugappa Shetty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant299; AIR1966Mys299; (1965)2MysLJ692
(1) Defendant 2 is the appellant in this second appeal which he has preferred against the decision of the II Additional Subordinate Judge of Mangalore South Kanara Respondent 1 was the plaintiff and respondent 2 was the tenant (Deft 1) respectively in that suit. The plaintiff's case was that he is a Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Kangaroo in O.S. No.275 of 1953 in respect of the estate of one Joseph P Fernandes. Defendant 1 was a tenant under the said J.P. Fernandes in respect of a portion of his estate comprising of survey No. 47 of Bolur village on payment of rental amount. Accordingly to the plaintiff, defendant 1 has obtained a registered sale deed on 23-11-1957 in execution of the decree passed in suit. O.S. 278 of 1953 filed by him against the heirs of the deceased Joseph P Fernandes for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit schedule properties. It was alleged that defendant 2 became entitled to collect the rent and profits of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjundayya (P.M.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ276Kant
ORDERHegde, J.1. The only relief pressed at the time of hearing, by Sri H. B. Datar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is that we should direct the State of Mysore and the Director of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Bangalore (respondents 1 and 2 respectively), to promote the petitioner as an overseer with effect from 1 December 1961 and as a supervisor with effect from 1 April 1963, and further to give him all consequential benefits by the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Court deems fit. 2. The material facts of this case are these : The petitioner joined service in the Government Central Press, Bangalore, as compositor in the year 1941. In 1945 he was promoted as a computer. On 1 July 1950, he was deputed to work in the Central Jail Press, Bangalore, as officiating foreman. He occupied that position as on other duty. On 13 November, 1957, the Mysore Public Servic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »