Karnataka Court July 1966 Judgments
Annegowda and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1966
Reported in: 1970CriLJ292
ORDERNarayana Pai, J.1. The Ex-Officio Magistrate at Chikmagalur issued a notice dated 20-6-1964 to the petitioners under Section 112, Crl. P. C. calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 500/- with one surety each for a like sum of Rs. 500/- for a period of one year to keep the peace. The said notice was issued by the Magistrate on receipt of a report from the Police. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and contended that the information disclosed was insufficient to take any action under Section 112 and connected Sections and that the Magistrate should discharge the notice. Thereupon, the Magistrate called upon the Police to furnish further particulars, on receipt of which he issued a second notice, also purporting to be under Section 112, Crl. P. C. on 18-12-1965.2. The petitioners, contending that the said procedure was irregular or illegal, moved the Sessions Judge at Chickmagalur to report the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Thilothama
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas201(Kar); (1966)2MysLJ718
1. The question of law arising for decision in this appeal is an interesting one and I am told that that question is not covered by any decision of this court or any other High Court. 2. The material facts in this case are few and they lie within a very narrow compass : One B.S.Revannaiah was an insurance agent working under the appellant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. During his lifetime, he appears to have canvassed a good deal of business in respect of which he was entitled to commission under section 44(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. He died on May 11, 1954, leaving behind him his widow and two minor daughters. Admittedly he had no other preferential heirs. One of his minor daughters died very soon after his death. His widow also dies on July 3, 1955. the plaintiff respondent claims to be the heir of Revannaiah and as such she has laid claim for the payment of the commission that would have been payable to Revannaiah had here b...
Tag this Judgment!Channabasappa Nagappa Khot and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ441Kant; (1966)2MysLJ333
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The challenge in these two writ petitions is to a circular issued by the Conservator of Forests. Belgaum Circle, on 19 March 1964 by which he directed that in respect of all departmental buildings in the occupation of employees in the Forest Department in his circle, rent should be recovered in accordance with the Mysore Civil Service Rules, 1958, from 1 April 1958. That circular also directed that the rent to be so recovered should be 10 per cent of the pay in all except those whose pay is Rs. 50 and below, a month.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 777 of 1964 are range forest officers and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 780 of 1964 is a forester. Their contention is that although they were in occupation of a building belonging to the Forest Department, they are not liable to pay any rent.3. It is pointed out to us by Sri Datar appearing for the petitioners that under note 3 to rule 850 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules made by the Governor of Bombay unde...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Yegneswaran Vs. Director General Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant235; AIR1967Mys235; (1966)2MysLJ347
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner who was a clerk in the Department of posts and Telegraphs passed in the year 1964 an examination which was prescribed by Rule 272 of the Rules in Volume IV of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual. The purpose of that examination was to produce a competent class of accountants for post Offices and the railway mall service. By his success in that examination, the petitioner became eligible to be appointed as an accountant in a grade known as the lower selection grade,2. Rule 272-A (ii) provided for recruitment to posts in the lower selection grade by two methods. It directed promotions to two-thirds of those posts and selection for the remaining one-third.3. On November 14, 1959, the petitioner, after his Selection under that rule was appointed as an accountant in the lower selection grade. He assumed charge of that post on December 5, 1959, and, by an Order made by the Post-master General on July 17, 1961, he was confirmed in that post with effect from April...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Vs. Patel Shivappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mys248; 1967CriLJ1671; ILR1966KAR1216; (1966)2MysLJ223
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Second City Magistrate Mysore, convicting the petitioner (accused 3) for the offence under Section 448 I. P. C.. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 26. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.2. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and two others on 29-6-65 by Patel Shivappa (P W 4) alleging that they trespassed into his house and assaulted his wife Mahadevamma (P W 9). The case was taken up on file and summonses were issued against the accused persons. The accused appeared before the Court and were bound over. The complainant undertook to produce the witnesses.After some adjournments, the witnesses were examined on various dates. Finally on 10th April 1965 the case of the complainant was closed and posted to 16-12-65, for examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr. P. C. As the Court was engaged in hearing other cases on that day, the case was adjourned to 20-12-65. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Aswathanarayan B.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ174Kant
1. The petitioners are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 652 of 1963 on the file of the Second Munsif, Bangalore. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendants, sued for declaration that the punishment imposed on him by the defendants is illegal and for a mandatory injunction to retransfer him to his original department. The defendants, inter alia, contended that the civil Court's jurisdiction to try the suit is barred by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the said contention, the trial Court raised the following issues : (1) Is the suit not maintainable in view of the plea in Para. 20 of the written statement (2) Is the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts barred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 2. Paragraph 20 of the written statement referred to above reads : 'The plaintiff is the vice-president of one of the unions and in spite of it he has not chosen to seek relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganathachar Agnihotri Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR1197; (1967)ILLJ78Kant
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. The petitioner is a legal practitioner at Yelbarga in Raichur district; he is also functioning as an Assistant Government Pleader, there. He is one of the candidates that had appeared for the Munsif's examination held during the months of April and May 1965. That was an examination conducted by the Mysore Public Service Commission, in accordance with the Mysore Munsifs (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 134, and the proviso to Art. 309 of the constitution. Rule 12 of the rules requires that the names of candidates successful in the competitive examination shall be published in the Mysore Gazette by the Commission in order of merit; and it is further provided therein, that appointments shall be made of candidates in the order in which their names appear in the list. The list of candidates successful in the said examination held during the months of April and May 1...
Tag this Judgment!Andrews (P.) Vs. District Educational Officer, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ378Kant; (1967)ILLJ380Kant; (1966)2MysLJ324
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner was an assistant teacher working in the Primary Boy's School, Kanakapura, at the relevant time. He had by then put in ten years of service. In the year 1959 he made an application for admission to the Mysore Secondary School Leaving Certificate public examination and that application was presented to the Inspector of Schools. He was issued a hall-ticket and he was declared as having passed the examination. 2. On 6 March, 1960, he was however asked to surrender the marks card, and, he was informed that since he had not passed the middle school examination or an equivalent examination he could not have sat for the S.S.L.C. Examination. Nothing was done about it for some considerable time. But on 17 October, 1961 the District Educational officer called upon him to show cause against three charges which he formulated. The first of them was that although the petitioner knew that he did not possess the required qualification to appear as a teacher-candidat...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Gayathri Trading Co. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MysLJ252; [1966]18STC349(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner in all these three revision petitions is the State Government, and the complaint made by them is that there was an abdication on the part of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal of the appellate power confided to it by section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 32(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Mysore Act No. 9 of 1964), which will be referred to as the amending Act. 2. Before the amending Act came into force, section 21(2) of the principal Act empowered the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to exercise revisional jurisdiction either suo motu or on application. The assessees in all these three cases presented revision petitions to the Commissioner under section 21(2)(ii) invoking that revisional jurisdiction. But, by the amending Act, that revisional jurisdiction was taken away from the Commissioner, and section 32(1) of the amending Act provided that all revision petitioners presented under section 21(2) of the prin...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganathachar Agnihothri Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant53; AIR1967Mys53; (1966)2MysLJ208
Sadasivayya, J.1. The petitioner is a Legal Practitioner at Yelbarga in Raichur District, he is also functioning as an Assistant Government Pleader, there. He is one of the candidates that had appeared for the Munsiffs' examination held during the months of April and May 1965. That was an examination conducted by the Mysore Public Service Commission, in accordance with the Mysore Munsiffs (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.Rule 12 of the Rules requires that the names of candidates successful in the competitive examination shall be published in the Mysore Gazette by the Commission in order of merit; and it is further provided therein, that appointments shall be made of candidates in the order in which their names appear in the list. The list of candidates successful in the said examination held during the months of April and May 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›