Karnataka Court March 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.V. Munavalli Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Sou ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Kant249; AIR1967Mys249; (1967)2MysLJ484
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, who is Lay Secretary Grade II, working in the Medical College, Bellary, has, in this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the order made by the Director of Medical Services in Mysore, Bangalore (Respondent 2), dated 18th January 1965. relieving him from the post of Grade I Lay Secretary, in which post he had been placed, consequent on the order of the Government in letter No. PLM 14 MSM 64, dated 25th July 1964, to wait for one year to get his further promotion.2. The relevant facts material for the decision of the case briefly stated, are:The petitioner was a Head Clerk in the Medical Department in the erstwhile State of Bombay on the day immediately prior to the Reorganisation of States, and on 1-11-1956, he was allotted to serve in the reorganised State of Mysore In the provisional inter-State Seniority list of the ministerial establishment of the Medical Department as on 1st November 1956, published by the Stat...
In Re: Rajesa Husensa Kannolli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ194
C. Honniah, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur of committing the offence under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution are these; Irappayya Jambagi was the owner of Section No. 186/1+2A of Satihal village in Bijapur District, called 'Hallad Hola'. Out of this survey number, he sold 14 acres to Rajesaheb Kannoli (A-l) under the sale deed Ex. 88, dated 5.6.1959. Even though the recitals in the sale deed were to the effect that possession was delivered to the vendee, the vendor continued to remain in possession of the property sold and was cultivating the same giving 1/4th share of the produce thereof to the vendee. A-1 attempted to take possession of the property he purchased, but Irappayya resisted the same. In this behalf there were disputes between them.Two criminal eases had been filed against them for various...
Gokhale (B.G.) Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ654Kant; (1967)1MysLJ421
ORDERKalagate, J.1. The petitioner who is a retired District Treasury Officer has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution claiming the following reliefs : (1) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondent 1, i.e., the State of Mysore, to grant to the petitioner the benefit of the Bombay Pension Rules as on the date of his superannuation. (2) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondent 1 to grant the petitioner the special pay at the rate of 20 per cent. of the salary under the Mysore Civil Services Rules. 2. The basis for the two claims made by the petitioner, as we gather from his affidavit, is as follows : The petitioner was in the service of the former State of Bombay and, consequent upon the reorganization of States, his services were allotted to the new State of Mysore. Since he was an allottee, his conditions of service before the date of allotment are protected under the proviso to sub-section (7) of S. 115 of the St...
The State Vs. Abdul Rasheed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Mys231; 1967CriLJ1661; ILR1967KAR1055; (1967)1MysLJ347
ORDER1. These two Criminal Revision cases involve common questions of law and fact and therefore, they are disposed of by a common order2. The petitioner is the accused in both the cases before the trial court. On 30-10-1966, he was found in possession of 79 bags of rice. The police seized those bags and registered a case in Crime No, 295/1 of 1966 and produced the rice bags before the Court Again, on 2-11-1966, they searched and found in his possession 135 bags of rice. They registered a case in Crime No. 302/1 of 1966 and produced the rice bags before the Court. In the former case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to be hereinafter called the 'Act' and in the latter case, the offence said to have been committed by the accused is under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of Defence of India Rules, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' and Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Act In the F. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›