Karnataka Court November 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Malatibai and ors. Vs. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Belgau ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR1]; (1968)IILLJ443Kant
Gopivallabha Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, in File No. GB/WCA, 3/1965, dated 6 October, 1966. 2. One Madhukar Mangesh Kekare was an employee of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, and he appears to have been working as a traffic controller at Belgaum under the control of the Corporation. He is said to have fallen on the ground on 17 September, 1964, while he was on duty; and subsequently he died on 19 September, 1964. 3. On 1 April, 1965, the dependants of the deceased, who are now the appellants before us, made an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, claiming compensation of Rs. 8,000. This claim was resisted by the Corporation. One of the objections was that the deceased was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. They also contested the claim on other grounds. 4. The Commissioner framed certain issues, of which the first is...
Malatibai and ors. Vs. the Divisional Controller, Belgaum and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant208; AIR1968Mys208; (1967)2MysLJ617
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J. (1) This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, in File No. GB/WCA 3/1965, dated October 6, 1966.(2) One Madhukar Mangesh Kekare was an employee of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, and he appears to have been working as a Traffic Controller at Belgaum under the control of the Corporation. He is said to have fallen on the ground on 17-9-`964 while he was on duty and subsequently he died on 19-9-1964.(3) On 1-4-1965, the dependents of the deceased, who are now the appellants before us, made an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, claim compensation of Rs. 8,000/-. This claim was resisted by the Corporation. One of the objections was that the deceased was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. They also contested the claim on other grounds.(4) The Commissioner framed certain issues, of which the first issue is the one that arises...
M.G. Gurubasappa Vs. Rudriah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Kant269; AIR1969Mys269; (1968)1MysLJ191
1. The finding of the lower appellate court is that the signature which appears on Exhibit P-1 did not exist when that document was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant. It believed the evidence of the defendant which was corroborated by the evidence of D.W. 2 that Ex. P-3 another promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was returned by the plaintiff to the defendant without the stamp which originally existed, and on which the defendant has fixed the signature. The lower appellate Court also disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiff that when Ex. P-1 was handed over to him, it contented the signature of the defendant. The clear finding of the lower appellate Court was that there was no such signature.2. The presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was thus unavailable to the plaintiff. That presumption becomes available only when there is a promissory note admittedly executed. A document which is not signed by the maker is not a pr...
Mythili Vs. State of Myosre by Its Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Kant59; AIR1969Mys59; (1968)1MysLJ189
Chadrashekhar, J.1. The petitioner was formerly working as a teacher in Primary School. By the memo dated 17-10-1962 (marked as Exhibit 'B') issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Chitradurga, she was temporarily promoted as Tailoring Instructor (the name of the post is used uniformly irrespective of the sex of the incumbent) and posted to the Government high School, Shantigrama, Hassan District. By the memo dated 19-10-1965 (marked as Exhibit 'D') issued by the Director of Public Instruction in Myosre, respondent-17 was appointed as Tailoring Instructor and posted to the Government High School at Shantigrama in the place of the petitioner. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the memo (Exhibit 'D') by which she was sought to be replaced by respondent-17.2. After filing this petition, the petitioner made an application for an interim order staying the operation of the impugned memo. But, before any order could be made on su...
Thimmarayappa (V.C.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1967
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ14Kant; (1968)1MysLJ113
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This writ petition is directed against a departmental enquiry that is being held against the petitioner who at the relevant time was an Assistant Controller of Civil Supplies, Bangalore. The petitioner has sought for the relief of a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the charges framed by respondent 2 (the Deputy Director of Vigilance, State Vigilance Commission, Bangalore), in his memorandum No. ENJ 13/65-66 dated 26 May, 1966 and the Government order No. C1. 139 GCS 64 dated 26 October, 1965 and another Government order dated 11 March, 1966 bearing No. C1 23 AC1 65. The copies of the said documents have been produced by the petitioner as annexures D, B and A, respectively to the petition. He has further prayed for a writ or order in the nature of 'prohibition' prohibiting respondent 2 from holding any further departmental proceeding pursuant to the Government order dated 26 October, 1965. He has also prayed for a declaration that rule 11(2)...
Basappa and ors. Vs. Shrishailappa Shivappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Kant200; AIR1969Mys200; (1968)1MysLJ234
1. The appellants are the plaintiffs who brought a suit for recovery of rent in respect of a period of five years commencing from the year 1953-54 and ending with year 1957-58. The suit for the recovery of this rent was brought on October 28, 1959. In respect of the rent payable for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the defence was a plea of limitation.2. The court of first instance negatived that plea and recorded a finding that the suit was within time. But in the appeal preferred by the tenants, the District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit with respect to these two years upholding the plea of limitation advanced by the defendant.3. The plaintiffs appeal.4. It is undisputed that the fixation of the standard rent payable by the tenants was finally made only on August 4, 1959 by the District Judge in appeal. That was the ground on which the court of first instance came to the conclusion that the cause of action for the recovery of rent for the entire period arose only when the fixati...
State of Mysore Vs. B. Ramachandra Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant243; AIR1968Mys243; 1968CriLJ1183
ORDER(1) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga under S. 438 Cr. P. C. to quash the order passed by the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Shimoga, in C. C. No.2477/1964 dropping further proceedings on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable without the sanction of the State Government under Section 197 Cr. P. C. (2) Briefly, the facts of the case are these; The complainant B. Ramachandra Rao, District Auditor of Co-operative Societies, who was appointed to audit the accounts of Malnad Areca Marketing Cooperative Society, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Society' filed a complaint alleging that the respondent who happened to be the Secretary of the said Society had made certain defamatory allegations against the complainant during the course of the Annual Report in respect of the Society submitted by him for the year 1963-64. A case was registered for an offense under S. 500 I. P. C. After service of summons, the accused appeared and filed an application und...
Rachappa Maharudrappa Kalagi Vs. Irappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant263; AIR1968Mys263; (1967)2MysLJ642
(1) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bijapur directing the appellant to pay Rs. 1,244-78 to the respondent with future interests and cost.(2) The sole point argued in this appeal relates to limitation. In order to appreciate that point, it is necessary to refer to a few admitted facts.(3) The present appellant was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1961 which was instituted by the respondents on 27-7-1961 for recovery of Rs. 1,244-78 nP. as being due under a khata balance as in the year 1952. The plaintiff had been in possession of certain shop premises belonging to the defendant-appellant's father on an annual lease of Rs. 55. The defendant gave a notice on 7-7-1963 terminating the lease and thereafter instituted Civil Suit No. 145/55 in the Civil Court. Therein the plaintiffs pleaded that there had been an oral agreement of lease under which they were to continue in possession of the property as lessees for a period of 22 years in liquidati...
Rajasekharayya (K.S.) Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1967
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ163Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. An Executive Engineer who retired on superannuation on 9 January, 1965 is the petitioner before us. In this writ petition which he presented in August 1965 he makes two complaints. The first is that he was improperly excluded from promotion the post of a Superintending Engineer during the long period between June 1963 and the date of his retirement. The second is that in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him when he was still in service a punishment in the nature of a reduction of pension was imposed on him after his retirement which was not permissible. 2. Sri Keshava Ayyangar appearing for the petitioner informed us that the petitioner does not press in this writ petition, the contention concerning his exclusion from promotion. He seeks permission to withdraw from that part of the writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies such as might be available to him in that regard. We grant him permission to withdraw from that part of the writ p...
K.S. Rajasekhariah Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant206; AIR1968Mys206; (1967)2MysLJ612
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. An Executive Engineer who retired on superannuation on January 9, 1965 is the petitioner before us. In this writ petition which he presented in August, 1965 he makes two complaints. The first is that he was improperly excluded from promotion to the post of a Superintending Engineer during the long period between June, 1963 and the date of his retirement. The second is that in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him when he was still in service, a punishment in the nature of a reduction of pension was imposed on him after his retirement which was not permissible. (2) Mr. Keshava Iyengar appearing for the petitioner informed us that the petitioner does not press in this writ petition, the contention concerning his exclusion from promotion. He seeks permission to withdraw from that part of the writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies such as might be available to him in that regard. We grant him permission to withdraw from that part of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »