Karnataka Court June 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.
State of Mysore Vs. Nagappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mys12; 1968CriLJ70; ILR1967KAR1136; (1967)2MLJ29
ORDER(1) This reference is made under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar. Briefly stated, the facts are: Gowramma who is respondent No.2 in this reference obtained an order of maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the rate of Rs.20/- per month of 23rd March 1964. Subsequently she filed a civil suit and obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month on 30th March 1966. After the decree of the civil court an application under section 488 (3) was made to the criminal court for enforcement of the order of maintenance at Rs.20/- per month passed by it. In that application Gowramma claimed a maintenance from February 1966 to end of April 1966. Objection had been filed on behalf of the first respondent that the order of maintenance made under section 488 should be cancelled under Section 489 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate overruled the objection of Respondent No. 1. He file...
State of Mysore Vs. Narsappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Mys214; 1967CriLJ1540; (1967)2MysLJ145
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: 2. Rajsekhar, the complainant, is a resident of Rampur Village. Manvi Taluka, Raichur District, and the accused persons are the residents of the Hokrani Village, situated in the same taluk. Harijans of Rampur Village, including Rajsekhar (who has been examined in the case as PW 1) were allotted 6 plots in S. No. 197, situated in Hokrani Village. Including the complainant, Raisekhar, 3 more persons were allotted these 6 plots. S. No. 197 in Hokrani Village is a gairanland land and the plots which were allotted to the complainant and the other persons numbering 3 are situated in that survey number. It was said that on 26th October, 1963, possession of the allotted plots had been delivered to the allottees. The complainant, Rajsekhar, lodged a complaint alleging that on 13th November, 1963, when the complainan...
Girija Bai Vs. A. Thakur Das and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Kant217; AIR1967Mys217; ILR1967KAR1128; (1967)2MysLJ49
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. This Revision Petition comes be-fore us on a reference made under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961. when this matter came up for hearing before His Lordship Justice Kalagate.2. This Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 25th March. 1965, made by the First Additional Civil Judge Bangalore City, in Original Suit No. 12 of 1964. It purports to he an order on 1. A. Nos. IX and X The learned Judge disallowed both the applications. In the operative portion of the order, the learned Judge stales as follows:'Register the written statement as an application for the purpose of Order 33, Rule 1 of the C. P Code Issue notice to the other defendants and plaintiff in this suit and the Government Pleader. File is posted by 23-4-1965 for objections.'It must be observed that I. A. No IX was an application for the deletion of issue No 13 and I A No. X appears to be an application made by the 7th defendant under Section 151 of the...
Pillappa (T.) and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1967
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ329Kant; (1967)2MysLJ40
Per Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The four petitioners before us who were appointed as local candidates and who are now craft instructors in the Department of the Directorate of Employment and Training make a complaint that they are senior to respondents 4 to 32 but have been assigned lower ranks. Respondents 4 to 6 were promoted from class IV to class III in the year 1957 and it is asserted that since there was no provision for such promotions, their promotions are ineffective. Respondents 7 to 9, it is asserted, were appointed as craft instructors on 7 April 1960 without adherence to the procedure prescribed by the relevant recruitment rules. Respondents 10 to 32, it is alleged, were similarly appointed as craft instructors in disobedience to the provisions of the recruitment rules made by Government. It is asserted that by an order made by Government on 16 May 1962 the services of the petitioners who were appointed as local candidates were regularized with effect from earlier dates and their ...
Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. (by Director, M.C. Cherian) Vs. St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ853Kant; (1967)1MysLJ686
ORDERPer Tukol, J.1. This is an unusual writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents including the Commissioner of Police (respondent 2) praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to take steps for the prevention of commission of offences by the dismissed workmen and to remove the dismissed workmen from the premises of the petitioner-factory so as to prevent them from indulging in the commission of further offences and for taking such action as is necessary under the law to maintain law and order. 2. The facts and the circumstances under which the present writ petition has been filed may be briefly summarized as follows : The petitioner is the Mysore Machinery . This factory is engaged in the manufacture of plant and machinery for supply to various manufacturing units and to other factories. It has a capital of about Rs. 20 lakhs in the form of machinery installed within the premises, and the capacity of its workmen a...
Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mys51; 1969CriLJ221
Tukol, J.1. This is an unusual writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents including the Commissioner of Police (respondent No. 2) praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to take steps for the prevention of commission of offences by the dismissed workmen and to remove the dismissed workmen from the premises of the petitioner-factory so as to prevent them from indulging in the commission of further offences and for taking such action as is necessary under the law to maintain law and order.2. The facts and the circumstances under which the present writ petition has been filed may be briefly summarised as follows:The petitioner is the Mysore Machinery . This factory is engaged in the manufacture of plant and machinery for supply to various manufacturing units and to other factories. It has a capital of about Rs. 20 Lakhs in the form of machinery installed within the premises, and the capacity of its workmen attend...
Achutha Achar Vs. Sharada Jewellery Mart and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1967
Reported in: [1968(16)FLR168]; (1968)ILLJ500Kant; (1967)2MysLJ96
Per Somnath Ayyar, J.1. Achutha Achar who was a goldsmith in Mangalore is the petitioner before us. He made a complaint that he was a workman in a firm known as the Sharada Jewellery Mart in Mangalore and that his services were illegally terminated. In consequence there was a reference under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court which posed the question whether he was entitled to reinstatement with back-wages and other reliefs. The management denied that Achutha Achar was a workman and asserted that he was only an independent contractor. The labour court which accepted this contention rejected the reference declining jurisdiction. It is this decision of the labour court which is called in question by the petitioner who asks us to quash it by certiorari. 2. The labour court discussed the evidence given by Rameshachari on behalf of the management and that given by Achutha Achar and his witness vittal. Rameshachari on behalf of the management gave evidence that, a...
Mallharrao Kristrao Gadgoli Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1967
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ178Kant
Per Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner Gadgoli who was a permanent clerk in the district of Dharwar was officiating as an aval karkun in that district. On 3 September, 1956 when that district was in the State of Bombay he was reverted as a clerk by the then Collector of Dharwar. It is undisputed that the reversion was made on the ground 'that Gadgoli's record was not good and that his performance was found to be much below the average for an aval karkun.' 2. Gadgoli preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner who made an order on 1 August, 1959 directing his promotion as an aval karkun temporarily for a period of one year and that his work might be watched during that period. There was a further direction that his confirmation as aval karkun should depend upon the reports of his superiors of his performance as aval karkun. The Divisional Commissioner was persuaded to make this order for the reason that his scrutiny of the confidential sheets of the petitioner disclosed considera...
Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. by Its Secretary, Chamarapet ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant15; AIR1968Mys15
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The Petitioner is the Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1918. Respondent 3 was appointed as a clerk in that society on February 18, 1948 There was no provision in the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1918 for superannuation, and, for the first time a provision was made in that regard by the 50th rule of the rules made under the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1948 entitled the Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules, 1952. That Rule reads:-'50 Service Conditions of Employees of Co-Operative Societies:--* * * * (6) Age of Retirement:--No employee shall ordinarily be continued in the service of the society if he has attained 60 years of age.'(2) The clear meaning of this rule is that no employee could be retired from service until he attained 60 years of age, although power was reserved in the employer to continue his service even after the attainment of the age of superannuatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›