Karnataka Court November 1966 Judgments
Seshadri Setty M.N. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ610Kant
Per Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner before us is Seshadri Setty who contends that, under the Government notification of August 15, 1958, he was entitled to an extension of service which he was refused. He attained the age of superannuation on September 24, 1966, according to the age accepted by Government as correct. But the age so accepted by Government was at variance with the date of birth which was supplied by the petitioner, and, the Government notification upon which the petitioner depends provided for an extension of service in cases in which there was such disparity. That notification provided that a person in whose case there was such disparity should be granted extension of service equal to half the period of difference between the date of birth as originally indicated in the Government records and the revised date of birth. But the grant of extension was made subject to three conditions : one of which was that the Government servant should be physically fit and should hav...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Seshadri Setty Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant116; AIR1968Mys116; (1967)1MysLJ354
(1) The Petitioner before us is Mr. Seshadri Setty who contends that, under the Government notification of August 15, 1958, he was entitled to an extension of service which he was refused. He attained the age of superannuation on September 24,1966, according to the age accepted by the Government as correct. But the age so accepted by Government was at variance with the date of birth which was supplied by the petitioner, and, the Government notification upon which there was such disparity. That notification provided that a person in whose case there was such disparity should be granted extension of service equal to half the period of difference between the date of birth as originally indicated in the Government records and the revised date of birth. But the grant of extension was made subject to three conditions, one of which was that the Government servant should be physically fit and should have a satisfactory record of service. It is not stated that the other conditions were not fulf...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Rao (S.) Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1966
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ308Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. It is indisputable that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation. 2. That being so, under the provisions of rule 95 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, the petitioner has retired from Government service and the pending disciplinary proceeding cannot, therefore, continue. 3. Sri Venkataramayya, the Special Government Pleader, points out that by an Order made by Government on 13 November 1963, it was declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal, and that he shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders or until the date of termination of the enquiry. 4. But the fact that he was placed under suspension in that way and not even the fact that it was declared that he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal can arrest the retirement which comes into being on t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subba Rao Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant81; AIR1968Mys81; (1967)1MysLJ105
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) It is indisputable that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation. (2) That being so, under the provisions of Rule 95 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, the petitioner has retired from Government service and the pending disciplinary proceeding cannot, therefore, continue. (3) Mr. Venkataramaiah, the Special Government Pleader, points that by an order made by Government on November 13, 1963, it was declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal, and that he shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders or until the date of termination of the enquiry. (4) But the fact that he was placed under suspension in that way and not even the fact that it was declared that he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal can arrest the retirement which comes into being on t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. the Manager, Brooke Bond India Private Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mys191; 1967CriLJ1531; (1968)IILLJ309Kant
H. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharwar, in C.C. No. 1552 of 1965 on his file.2. The Labour Inspector, Hubli IV Circle Dharwar, filed a complaint against the Respondent, who is the Salesman of the Brooke Bond India P. Ltd., Sales Depot, Dharwar, for an offence punishable under Section 4(1) read with Section 30 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act in the Court if the Judicial Magistrate, F'irst Class, Dharwar. The accusation against the Respondent was that when the Labour Inspector visited the godown of the Respondent for enquiry about the registration under Section 4 of the Act on 20-11-1964, he found that no action had been taken for registration of the said establishment under the Act in pursuance of the instructions issued to the accused by his head office at Belgaum, and therefore, was liable to answer the charge referr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasanjeevayya (K.R.) Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1966
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR207]; (1969)IILLJ169Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. An order made by Government on 6 June, 1964 repatriating the petitioner to the Secretariat from the Department of Civil Supplies, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The first occasion on which the petitioner was appointed as a second division clerk in the Secretariat was on 8 September, 1953, and by an order made on 12 March, 1958 he was appointed as an assistant inspector of Civil Supplies in the grade Rs. 75 rising to Rs. 180. The Government Pleader says that this was not an appointment but amounted to a deputation and it is just now not necessary to advert to that controversy. 3. On 17 May, 1961 the petitioner's name was included in the provisional inter-State seniority list in the Department of Civil Supplies. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as an assistant from the post of a second division clerk in the Secretariat, and in consequence of correspondence between the Controller of Civil Supplies and Government, a communication...
Tag this Judgment!Hyder Khan Vs. Safoora Bee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mys98; 1968CriLJ525; ILR1967KAR632
ORDER(1) This is a reference under Section 438 Cr. P. C. by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, recommending that the order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 6/665, dated 13-10-1965 be set aside. (2) One Safeera Bee filed an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. on 23-3-63 against Hyder Khan, claiming maintenance on the ground that she had been neglected, in the court of the First Class Magistrate. Civil Station, Bangalore. Summons to Hyder Khan was issued on two or three times and the same could not be served on him. Ultimately, summons was returned by the Police with an endorsement that the summons could not be served on Hyder Khan and that fresh summons may be issued. Again summons was issued to Police on 1-4-63 for service. The Police made attempts to serve Hyder Khan on 2-4-63, but failed, and returned the summons. On 3-4-63, the learned Magistrate examined the Police Officer, who had been entrusted wit...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Motors Private Limited Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC290(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. In this sales tax revision petition the only point for consideration is, whether the petitioner assesses has been rightly made liable for sales tax in respect of two sums of money, viz., Rs. 24,713.90 and Rs. 2,408.43. The former is a figure culled out from a total of Rs. 3,77,149.64 representing the total of the bills for repairs of motor vehicles. The other amount, viz., the sum of Rs. 2,408.43, is the cost, according to the books of the assessee, of nuts and bolts purchased by him and utilised for the exclusive purpose of carrying out certain items of repairs. 2. The assessee carries on more than one department of business. One of them is for the sale of motor spares and the other is repairing and servicing of motor vehicles. When for the purpose of carrying out any repair job it becomes necessary to replace any spare part which could be supplied from out of the stock held by the assessee in his spare parts department, the said supply of the spare part is tr...
Tag this Judgment!M. Munivenkatappa Vs. Commissioner of Corporation of City of Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant253; AIR1967Mys253; (1967)1MysLJ102
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as mutsaddi in the service of the Bangalore City Municipal Council on November 20, 1943 Respondent 2 was appointed to that post on November 30, 1951. In a gradation list prepared by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore the petitioner was assigned the 40th rank and respondent 2 was assigned rank 79 (a)2. At a particular stage respondent 2 was deputed to the Social Welfare Department of the State in which he worked until August 17, 1964, and on his return to the Corporation he was promoted as revenue inspector by an order made by the Corporation on August 19, 1964.3. The petitioner complains that since he was senior to respondent 2, he should have been promoted as revenue inspector when respondent 2 was promoted.4. The only ground on which Mr. Subramanyam appearing for the Corporation defends the promotion of respondent 2 is that when he was in the service of the Social Welfare Department of the State, the Commissioner had 'seconded' his appointme...
Tag this Judgment!Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1966
Reported in: [1967(15)FLR385]; ILR1967KAR525; (1967)IILLJ134Kant; (1967)1MysLJ112
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner before us is the Minerva Mills, Ltd. We are asked to restrain the labour court, which is respondent 1 before us, by a writ of prohibition from proceeding to make an adjudication under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the three applications presented to it by three workmen of the mills who are respondents 2 to 4.2. It is undisputed that there was a consent award between the mill and the workmen which contains a provision that a workman could be retired on his attaining the age of sixty years. Respondents 2 to 4 alleged that they were retired even before they attained the age of sixty years while the mills asserted that that age had been reached and that the retirement was ordered on the workmen reaching the age of superannuation. 3. In that situation, the jurisdiction of the labour court to proceed to make an adjudication under S. 33C(2) was called in question by the mills. The labour court pronounced against the mills on that matter, and th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »