Karnataka Court April 1966 Judgments
H.B. Huilgol Vs. Divisional Superintendent (Personnel) Southern Railwa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant116; AIR1967Mys116
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner who was an employee in the Southern Railway attaining the age 55 years on July 10, 1962. He was previously an employee of M. & S. M. Railway, and when he became an employee of the Southern Railway he opted i'or the benefit of the leave rules applicable to persons who were in the employment of the M. & S. M. Railway. In consequence and under those rules, he was allowed six months leave preparatory to retirement from July 1, 1962.2. While he was on such leave preparatory to retirement, there were rules made by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution by which the age of compulsory retirement of a railway servant was raised to 58 years. These rules came into force on December 1, 1962. In regard to railway servants who were on leave preparatory to retirement on December 1, 1962 when those rules came into force, the President's rules made a special provision which reads :'Railway servants who are on leave preparatory to retirement on the 1st Dec...
Tag this Judgment!C. Srinivasa Rao and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR102(KAR); [1967]63ITR102(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ218
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of two applications presented under section 26A of the Act for renewal of registration of the assesses firm. The firm consisted of four partners and was constituted under an instrument of partnership executed on December 10, 1957. There was a registration of there firm under section 26A for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. But renewal of registration for the succeeding two years was refused by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that appropriation of profits had been made otherwise than in accordance with the instrument of partnership. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, to whom the assessee appealed, concurred in the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. 2. The question of law referred to us for our decision, on the application of the assessee, r...
Tag this Judgment!Y.S. Arabhavi Vs. the District Magistrate Belgaum and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mys126; 1967CriLJ795; (1966)1MysLJ700
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On May 22, 1963the petitioner was asked by the District Magistrate, Belgaum, to show cause why the two licences authorising possession of a gun and a revolver, should not be cancelled. It was stated in that notice that the petitioner was secretly instigating certain mill workers not to make contributions to the National Defence Fund and that he intimidated certain workers with his pistol. It was also said that he indulged in criticism of Government activities in the sphere of war efforts.2. At one stage from the order made by the Dist. Magistrate cancelling the licences there was an appeal and that appeal ended in an order of remand made by the Divisional Commissioner by which the District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the matter afresh after making necessary enquiries, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to make his representations. Eventually an order was made by the District Magistrate cancelling the licences. He was of the view that since the pe...
Tag this Judgment!New Taj Mahal Cafe (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ279Kant; (1966)2MysLJ161
ORDERTukol, J. 1. The managing director of the New Taj Mahal Cafe (Private), Ltd., Mangalore, has filed this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the award made in favour of respondent 1 (workmen of the cafe) by the labour court at Hubli of 29 January, 1965. 2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are not in dispute. The Government of Mysore, by their order No. PLM 237 LLD 64, dated 17 September, 1964, referred to the labour court at Hubli for adjudication, the dispute between the petitioner and the seven workmen. The point referred to for adjudication was whether the seven workmen named therein were entitled to reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service with effect from 5 December, 1963 or any other relief. On the evidence adduced by the parties, the labour court came to the conclusion that the service of the workmen had been illegally terminated from 5 December, 1963, without any enquiry, that there had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ651Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). 3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the highe...
Tag this Judgment!V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant71; AIR1968Mys71; (1969)ILLJ651aKant
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The petitioner before us was holding the post of a Superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, on September 1, 1956, the petitioner who became entitled under Section 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly established Corporation was appointed as a section Head. (2) In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by Section 11(2). (3) The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as Superintendent with effect from September 1, 1956 and make available to him the higher promoti...
Tag this Judgment!Shambu Reddy Vs. Ghalamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys311; 1966CriLJ1291; ILR1966KAR518; (1966)1MysLJ639
Bhimiah, J.(1) This Revision Petition came up before Gopivallabha Iyengar, J. sitting singly. His Lordship has referred the same to a Division Bench of e Court doubting the correctness of the decision of e Court reported in AIR 1958 Mys 128, in view of the decisions in Ishar v. Soma Devi, , Mt. Dhan Kaur v. Niranjan Singh, and in Iqbal Unnissa Begum v. Habib Pasha, : AIR1961AP445 . His Lordship has also formulated two questions of law for decision by the Division Bench They are:'(1) Whether the proviso following sub-section (3) of section 488 governs only sub-section (3) or whether it governs also sub-section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (2) That even if the proviso referred to above governs sub-section (1) of Section 488 also, whether it would be necessary to prove neglect or refusal on the part of the husband in cases where the husband has contracted a second marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress'(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for the disposal of...
Tag this Judgment!Francis (R.) and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary to Government
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ447Kant; (1966)2MysLJ165
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. There are 21 petitioners before us and they were all second division clerks in the district of Shimoga in the year 1951. During the years 1951 and 1952 they were entitled to increments in their pay-scale and those increments were paid notwithstanding their not having passed the prescribed departmental examinations.2. On 5 August, 1955 by an order made by the State Government, officials who were in service on or before 15 June, 1951 and who were less than 42 years of age, were granted time till 15 June, 1956 to pass the departmental examinations and tests. There was meanwhile an audit objection to the payment of increments to the petitioner for the period between 15 June, 1951 and 1 April, 1952 and it was thought that that objection perished with the extension of the time granted by the Government for passing the departmental examinations.3. But in his letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, it was pointed out that in the opinion of the Account-General,...
Tag this Judgment!Yadushaila High School, Managing Committee, Melkote Vs. the Registrar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant123; AIR1967Mys123; (1966)1MysLJ712
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1 on January 23, 1964 refusing to register the petitioner Society under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1960 and further quashing the order of the 2nd respondent confirming the order of the 1st Respondent on September 27, 1965. He also prayed for other direction or order consequential on the issue of such Writ. Respondent No. 3 to this petition is an educational society which has been ordered by the Registrar to be registered under the aforesaid Act. 2. The facts material for the determination of the questions arising in this Writ Petition are few. The petitioner filed an application on August 7, 1963 praying that the Society be registered under the provisions of the Mysore Societies Registration Act 1960. It appears that this application was returned for rectification and was presented a...
Tag this Judgment!Shivangouda Lingangouda Vs. Gangawwa Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant143; AIR1967Mys143; (1966)2MysLJ148
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The only point urged in this appeal is that the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The question of non-joiner was raised in the trial Court and an issue was framed in that connection. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit being one for ejectment, the sisters of the plaintiff-respondent are not necessary parties to the suit. It accordingly repelled the contention of the defendant that the suit is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties. The first appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court on this point.2. Mr. B. V. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanakarathanammal v. V. S. Loganath Mudaliar, : [1964]6SCR1 , the view taken by the Courts below must be held to be an erroneous one and further as the plaintiff had persisted in prosecuting the suit without impleading the necessary parties, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›