Karnataka Court April 1967 Judgments
Narayana (B.) Vs. B. Damodara Prabhu and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR74]; (1968)ILLJ788Kant; (1967)2MysLJ264
1. The appellant is the plaintiff who worked as a clerk under the defendant who is a distributor of petrol in Mangalore. On 16 July, 1958, the defendant terminated the plaintiff's service, and the plaintiff appealed to the appellate authority under S. 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (Madras Act 36 of 1947). On 29 November, 1961, the appellate authority declared the order of termination to be illegal and the sequel to that decision was the suit out of which this appeal arises brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,330 from the defendant. Out of this sum of money, a sum of Rs. 2,325 was claimed by the plaintiff as salary which he would have drawn has not his services been illegally terminated. This sum of money was also claimed in the alternative as damages, and to this sum of money a sum of Rs. 5 was added as expenses of notice. 2. The Munsif gave the plaintiff the decree which he wanted. But the District Judge in the appeal preferred by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi and anr. Vs. Krishna Bhatta and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant288; AIR1968Mys288
(1) In the village of Kolnad in the District of South Kanara, defendant 1 Krishna Bhat was living in the year 1943 with his wife Lakshmi and his little daughter Rohini. Krishna Bhat who is defendant 1 in the suits out of which these two appeals arise, is an agriculturist owning areca gardens and paddy fields. In the year 1943 he took another wife and according tot he allegations of the first wife Lakshmi she was driven out of the matrimonial home having been subjected to acts of cruelty. In the year 1951 a demand was made by Lakshmi for the payment of maintenance to her and that demand not having been complied with, a suit was instituted by Lakshmi on August 26, 1958 for past and future maintenance. The suit brought by her is Original Suit No. 364 of 1958 out of which R.S.A. 90 of 1964 arises.(2) In the year 1960 Rohini in her turn brought another suit against her father for past and future maintenance, and that suit was O. S. 11 of 1960 and the corresponding appeal is R. S. A. 134 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Alfred J. Peries Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Mys181; 1967CriLJ1353; (1967)1MysLJ634
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioner is a convict serving his sentence of imprisonment in the Central Jail, Bangalore. In this petition under Article 220 of the Constitution read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing that he be set at liberty. He has claimed that he has served his sentence and should, therefore, he released.2. As he was not represented by a counsel after admitting the petition, we requested Mr. B.K. Ramachandra Rao Advocate, to appear as amicus curiae and assist us He agreed to do so. He contacted the petitioner look instructions from him and addressed arguments at the stage of hearing of the petition. We are grateful to him for his valuable assistance.3. As directed by us the petitioner was produced before us by the Jail authorities and we permitted him also to make his submissions. Apart from stating a few facts he set out certain circumstances which, according to him would warran...
Tag this Judgment!Settappa Gudlyappa Parashetti Vs. Basappa Sangappa Karikatti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1967
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR143]; (1967)IILLJ621Kant; (1967)1MysLJ636
Per Gopivallabha Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal filed under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is against the order dated July 7, 1966 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 14 of 1962 on his file. It is found by the Commissioner that the appellant was the employer and the respondent was an employee, employed on daily wages of Rs. 2. The employee suffered an injury on June 12, 1961 and as a result of which his right forehand had to be amputated. The Commissioner has directed the employer to pay Rs. 3,024 by way of compensation to the employee; he also directed that the aforesaid sum should be deposited in Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and that that amount should be deposited in the postal savings bank and the applicant (respondent herein) should be paid by monthly instalment of Rs. 40, the payment to start from July 1966. 2. Under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act...
Tag this Judgment!Satappa Gullyappa Parashatti Vs. Basappa Sangappa Karikatti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Kant207; AIR1967Mys207
1. This appeal filed under Sec tion 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1823. is against the order, dated 7-7-1966, gassed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Belgaum. in W.C.A. 14/1962 on his file. It is found by the Commissioner that the appellant was the employer and the respondent was an employee, employed on daily wages of Rs. 2 The employee suffered an injury on 12-6-1961 and as a result of which his right forehand had to be amputated. The Commissioner has directed the employer to pay Rs. 3,024 by way of compensation to the employee; he also directed that the aforesaid sum should be deposited in Court within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order and that that amount should be despoiled in the Postal Savings Bank and the applicant (respondent herein) should be paid by monthly instalment of Rs. 40 the payment in shirt from July 1966.2. Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, an appeal lies only if a substantial question of la...
Tag this Judgment!Javaregowda and ors. Vs. Mullegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Mys169; 1967CriLJ1153
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the Order or the learned First Class Magistrate, Krishnarajnagar, in Criminal Misc. No. 14 of 1966 2. The first member of the second party filed a complaint on 25-4-66 before the Sub-Inspector of Police of K R Nagar stating that he was in possession of survey numbers 284. 287, 288, 289 and 290 of Chandagal village alone with the other members of his party and that the first party members were disturbing his possession and that on account of that there was likelihood of breach of the peace On 13-5-66, the first party members complained that they were in possession of the lands and that the members of the other party were disturbing their possession and that on account of that, there was every likelihood of breach of the peace.3. The Sub-Inspector of Police sent his report dated 23-5-66 to the Court of the First Class Magistrate, K. R. Nagar, slating that on account of the dispute in respect of the said lands between the two parties, the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarajendra Mills Workers' Union (By Its General Secretary) Vs. As ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ504Kant; (1967)2MysLJ174
ORDERTukol, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by two different sets of workmen, the first by persons who are the members of the Krishnarajendra Mills Workers' Union, and the second, by the workmen of Krishnarajendra Mills Karmika Sangha. The prayer made in both these writ petitions is for a writ of certiorari to quash the settlement arrived at between respondents 2 to 5 with the assistance of the conciliation officer who is respondent 1. 2. In Writ Petition No. 456 of 1967, there is a specific prayer for issuing a direction to respondent 2 to pay wages and dearness allowance to the workmen in accordance with the settlement dated 1 July, 1963 which, according to the petitioners, is still in force. There is also a prayer for a writ of mandamus restraining the conciliation officer from giving effect to the said settlement on the ground that the same was illegal and void. 3. The circumstances under which these two writ petitions have been fil...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarajendra Mills Workers Union by Its General Secretary Vs. Assis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant49; AIR1968Mys49; [1967(15)FLR232]; ILR1968KAR14
Tukol, J. (1) These two writ petitions have been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by two different sets of workmen, the first by persons who are the members of the Krishnarajendra Mills Workers' Union, and the second, by the workmen of Krishnarajendra Mills Karmika Sangha. The prayer made in both these writ petitions is for a writ of certiorari to quash the settlement arrived at between respondents 2 to 5 with the assistance of the Conciliation Officer who is respondent No.(2) In W.P. No.456 of 1967, there is a specific prayer for issuing a direction to respondent No.2 to pay wages and dearness allowance to the workmen in accordance with the settlement dated 1-7-1963 which, according the petitioners, is still in force. There is also a prayer for a writ of mandamus restraining the Conciliation Officer from giving effect to the said settlement on the ground that the same was illegal and void.(3) The circumstances under which these two writ petitions have been filed are briefly as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›