Karnataka Court January 1966 Judgments
Swastic Cashew Industries (Private) Ltd., Mangalore and ors. Vs. Indus ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR908; (1967)ILLJ30Kant; (1966)1MysLJ373
ORDERPer Gopivallabha Ayyangar, J. 1. Disputes between the petitioners, respondents 3, 4 and 5, the managements of Cashewnut Industries at Mangalore, South Kanara, and their workmen [respondents 2(i) to (vi)] were referred by the Government of Mysore to the industrial tribunal at Bangalore for adjudication under S. 10(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in their reference dated 29 May, 1963 bearing No. PLM 205 LLD 63. The reference included many points of disputes. In these petitions we are only concerned with the fifth point of dispute relating to the claim of dearness allowance. The workmen claimed dearness allowance at Rs. 15 per month or 50 nP. per day. The demands of the workmen included the introduction of a gratuity scheme. The industrial tribunal, respondent 1 in this petition, made an award on 27 May, 1965 refusing the introduction of a gratuity scheme, and directing the management to pay dearness allowance at 50 nP. to each of their workmen, irrespective of the class ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant44; AIR1967Mys44; 1967CriLJ503; ILR1966KAR936; (1966)1MysLJ324
ORDER1. The petitioner before this Court was the 2nd accused in the trial court. He has been convicted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary. of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rule I. for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further Rule I. for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed.2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner represented to P. W. 9 Chandra-sekharappa of Shimoga that he would get him a genuine driving licence from Bellary and induced him to deliver Rs. 100/-. The petitioner asked P. W. 9 to give him Rs. 25/- in the first instance and also to give three of hispnotographs. P. W. 9, believing him, gave Rs. 25/- and also the said three photographs. The petitioner promised to send the licence through Value Payable Post which P. W. 9 should take after payment of Rs. 75/-. Accordingly, when the V. P. article was received, P. W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. L.J. Machado and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Kant346; AIR1966Mys346; (1966)2MysLJ378
1. On May 11, 1961, at about 5.25 P.M. on a road in Mangalore known as the Kankanady Road, Sylvester Machado, a little boy aged 8 years who was attempting to cross the road was caught underneath the wheels of a lorry and killed. That lorry belonged to defendant 1 and was driven by defendant 2. The two parents of Sylvester instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mangalore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7705 as damages from defendants 1 and 2 and also from defendant 3, an insurer, with whom defendant 1 had insured his motor vehicle against third party risks. The Subordinate Judge awarded to plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation and from that decree the insurer appeals.(2) The appellant complaints that no sum in excess of Rs. 1,000 could have been awarded as damages to the plaintiffs and Mr. Anantharamaiah appearing for the appellant contends that the sum of Rs. 6000 awarded is far too excessive, and that, the Subordinate Judge determined the compensation by th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore Vs. V.C. Ramachandran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR270; [1966]60ITR103(KAR); [1966]60ITR103(Karn); (1966)1MysLJ455
Hegde, J.1. This is a reference under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Two questions referred to this court for its opinion are : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the value of the land surrounding the buildings in valuing the properties Nos. 1 and 2 ?; l and (2) Whether an asset such as land acquires value only when there is an intention to sell The facts of the case are fully set out in the statement of the case submitted. Hence, we shall quote the same. [The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : The High Court of Mysore at Bangalore by their order dated 1st October, 1963, in Civil Petition No. 87 of 1963 have directed the Tribunal to submit the following two questions of law along with a statement of the case to the High Court. In compliance with the said order of the High Court, we submit the following two questions of law under sec...
Tag this Judgment!Kashawwa Vs. Phadeppa Sangaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Kant320; AIR1966Mys320; (1966)1MysLJ271
(1) The appellant is the second wife of the respondent. She married him in 1946 when he already had a first wife living. This was before the coming into force of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act of 1946. After the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act of 1947 was passed subsequently, the appellant filed against her husband Divorce Suit No. 31 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the First Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Belgaum praying for a decree for judicial separation and permanent alimony One of the grounds on which judicial separation could be granted under Section 4 of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act of 1947 is that the husband had married again before the coming into force of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act of 1946. The Bombay High Court in a decision reported in Laxmibai v. Wamanrao, : AIR1953Bom342 had taken the view that the benefit of this provision could be taken only by a first wife and not by a second wife. On account of this decision, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Noronha (A.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR418; (1969)IILLJ171Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a Circle Inspector of Police, challenges in this writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the rule in the Mysore Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965, prescribing that for being promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police from the cadre of Circle Inspectors, the officer concerned should not have completed 52 years at the time the question of his promotion comes up for consideration. Further he seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court to respondent 1, directing it to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date his immediate junior was promoted to that post. 2. Prior to 1 November, 1956, the petitioner was serving in the former State of Coorg. As a result of the Reorganization of States, he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. In his parent State, there was no age restriction in the matter of promotion of an Inspector of Police as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. After Reorganization of States...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmiah Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant83; AIR1967Mys83; (1966)1MysLJ515
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the accused, has been convicted under Section 76(2) of the Maysore Prohibition Act and sentenced to seven days' rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. He filed an appeal against the said conviction and sentence to the learned Sessions Judge of Coorg, Mercara, which was dismissed and the said conviction and sentence was confirmed. He has come up to this Court in revision questioning the correctness of the said Order. 2. Sri Dasappa, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that there is no sufficient evidence that the petitioner was found drunk. He argues that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case and the onus is always on the prosecution to prove that the accused had consumed prohibited liquor. He further contends that the defence of the accused was that ho had taken B. G. Phos and the evidence of the Doctor coupled with the statement of the accused and the...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Rao Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys241; 1966CriLJ1033; (1968)2MysLJ421
ORDER(1) The petitioner before this Court is the accused in the trial Court. A charge-sheet was laid against him by the Station House Officer, Gangavathi before the learned First Class Magistrate, Gangavathi, alleging that he had committed an offence under S. 409 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and wanted to proceed with the case under section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A petition was presented on behalf of the accused contending that the Court had no power to proceed with the case, as earlier, the learned Magistrate had accepted the 'B' Report submitted by the Police with regard to the same offence.(2) Sri M.M. Jagirdar learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the charge-sheet as he had earlier accepted the 'B' Report submitted by the police and ordered that the case be closed. He argues that the order of the learned Magistrate is a judicial order and the Magistrate is n...
Tag this Judgment!A. Noronha Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Kant267; AIR1966Mys267; (1966)1MysLJ265
Hegde, J. (1) The petitioner who is a Circle Inspector of Police, challenges in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the rule in the Mysore Police Service (Recruitment) Rules 1965, prescribing that for being promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police from the cadre of Circle Inspector, the Officer concerned should not have completed 52 years at the time the question of his promotion comes up for consideration. Further he seeks a writ of mandamus from this court to Respondent No. 1 directing it to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date his immediate junior was promoted to that post.(2) Prior to 1-11-1956, the petitioner was serving in the former State of Coorg. As a result of the reorganisation of States, he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. In his parent State, there was no age restriction in the matter of promotion of an Inspector of Police s a Deputy Superintendent of Police. After re organization of States, the no...
Tag this Judgment!Mayanna Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant40; AIR1967Mys40; 1967CriLJ386; ILR1966KAR252; (1966)1MysLJ124
ORDER1. The petitioner had been convicted of an offence under Section 58(f) of the Mysore Prohibition Act and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to one month's S. I. The petitioner underwent the substantive sentence of one month's simple imprisonment, and as he did not pay the fine of Rs. 500/-, he also suffered the sentence of one month's S. I. passed in default of payment of fine. The said judgment of the court sentencing him was passed on 12-7-1962. On 24-8-1964, that is, about two years after the petitioner had undergone the sentence of imprisonment, the trial court issued a warrant of attachment of the joint family properties of the petitions for the recovery at the fine of Rs. 500. The petitioner has come up in revision questioning the propriety of the issue of such warrant.2. Sri Tilak Hegde, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, has questioned the propriety of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He contends that as p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »