Karnataka Court July 1967 Judgments
Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna Vs. Laxman Siddappa Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Kant182; AIR1967Mys182; (1967)2MysLJ277
ORDER1. In the General Elections held in February 1967, No 192 Gokak Assembly Constituency was reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribes specified in para 2 of Part VIII of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 1950 hereinafter called the 'Scheduled Tribes Order' The petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 and two others had filed nominations for the reserved seat. The petitioner objected before the Returning Officer to the Respondents' nominations on the ground that they were not qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seat since they were not members of any of the specified Scheduled Tribes and that in fact they belonged to the 'Bedar' caste. The Returning Officer overruled the said objection and accepted the nominations of the respondents as also of one Bhimgouda Mallgouda Patil who subsequently withdrew from the contest within the time allowed under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter called the 'Act'. It may be mentioned that the nomination of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Shiddojirao Parvatrao Vs. Sadashiva Rao Shiddojirao and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant85; AIR1968Mys85; (1967)2MysLJ303
(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for partition and possession of one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties has been dismissed by the trial Court. He instituted the suit alleging that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the ownership of the deceased Shiddojirao Yeswantrao Parvatrao, who dies on 16th January 1942. He states that he is the dasiputra of the deceased Shiddoji Rao Yeswantarao and that defendant 1 is his (Siddojirao's) natural son. Thus the plaintiff and the defendant 1 are members of a Hindu joint family and, according to law, he (plaintiff) is entitled to one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties.(2) It is further alleged that the deceased Shiddoji Rao and defendant 1 executed a registered deed of maintenance in his favour and in pursuance thereof, he is in possession of some of the properties belonging to the family. Since the first defendant is alienating the properties belonging to the joint family, he does not desi...
Tag this Judgment!Maniyar (R.S.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ486Kant; (1967)2MysLJ283
ORDERTukol, J.1. The question raised by the petitioner relates to regulation of seniority of an officer who has been 'reinstated' into service some months after he had been relieved of his duties on acceptance of his voluntary resignation. 2. The petitioner and respondent 3 were appointed in the former State of Bombay as probationary sub-registrars in grade III, in the year 1948 and had been confirmed in that grade in due course, long before the Reorganization of States. The petitioner was junior to respondent 3. Both of them were allotted to the new State of Mysore with effect from 1 November, 1956. In the division wise provisional seniority list for the Belgaum Division, the petitioner was shown at serial No. 7 and respondent 3 was shown at serial No. 4 under the category of second-grade sub-registrars. In the State-wise list of second grade sub-registrars prepared for promotion to the post of first-grade sub-registrars in August, 1959 the rank of respondent 3 was 38 while that of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandrappa (T.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ675Kant; (1967)2MysLJ360
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner before us was an Assistant Engineer in the district of Hassan when he was charged of the supervision of a tank-repair work. In a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him, eight charges were leveled against him. The inquiring authority which was not the disciplinary authority recorded a finding that charges 2 and 3 were proved that charges 1 and 4 were partly proved and that charges 5 to 8 were not proved. By an order made by the Government on 19 November, 1962, these findings of the inquiring authority were accepted. 2. Under the provisions of rule 11(10)(1)(b) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, a notice was thereupon issued by Government calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalties enumerated in Cls. (iv) and (v) of rule 8 of the rules should not be imposed on him. On 15 July, 1963, the petitioner made a representation in writing against the imposition of any such punishment, and, b...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Krishna Vs. M.C. Padma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant226; AIR1968Mys226
Kalagate, J.(1) In this appeal by the husband, we are only concerned with as to whether the direction of the court to the husband to pay Rs. 120/- per mensem towards the permanent alimony for his wife from the date of his filing the petition i.e. 1st September 1962, and the further directions to him to return the cash of Rs. 2,000/-, along with the silver articles and the furniture as noted at items Nos. 2 and 4 in Schedule A of I. A. II or its value of Rs. 2,000/- are proper. This order was made on I.A. II filed by the wife in the petition filed by the husband under section 13, Clause 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking a decree of divorce.(2) I.A. No. II was made under Ss. 25 and 27 of the Act seeking permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month and also a direction in the decree with respect to the properties stated to have been presented to both husband and wife at the time of marriage and on subsequent occasions by parents an...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Srinivasa Shenoy Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC483(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The source of these three revision petitions is a best judgment assessment of the turnover under section 12(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, when the petitioner who operates a soda factory at Udipi did not produce a return. He contended that his turnover was less than Rs. 7,500 a year, and so had no duty to produce a return of his turnover. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer made a best judgment assessment following the procedure prescribed in rules 16 and 18 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, and that best judgment assessment, which was made under section 12(3), related to the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The turnover in respect of which there was a best judgment assessment related to what was described as the petitioner's business in the soda factory and also timber, furniture and firewood. For the year 1960-61, the taxable turnover was estimated at Rs. 26,000; for 1961-62 at Rs. 34,000; and for 1962-63 at Rs. 36,000. It is not necessary for us to se...
Tag this Judgment!Banwarilal Nemani Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC55(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. These two revision petitions presented under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, involve the interpretation of sections 20 and 22 of the Act, as they stood before their amendment by the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Mysore Act No. 9 of 1964). This is how the question arises. 2. In respect of the sales of declared goods by the petitioner, the Commercial Tax Officer assessed the turnover in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. There was a claim by the petitioner for a refund under the first proviso to section 5(4) of the Act, which directs the refund of the tax paid in respect of the sale or purchase of declared goods which are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The refunds, according to the petitioner, were refused by the Commercial Tax Officer and so, he appealed to the Deputy Commissioner under section 20. When those appeals were dismissed, he appealed further to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjad (M.G.) Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ445Kant; (1967)2MysLJ274
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 8 August, 1961 respondent 2 who was a chief reporter in the Department of Publicity and Information was promoted by Government temporarily as Assistant Director of Publicity and Information. The petitioner was then a superintendent in that department. He contends that he should have been promoted in preference to respondent 2, and so, he asks us to issue a writ of mandamus directing his promotion with effect from the date on which respondent 2 was promoted. There is also a prayer that we should strike down as amendment made to the cadre and recruitment rules regulating recruitment to posts in the Department of Publicity and Information under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. But Sri Ullal, very properly, does not press that prayer. There is a third prayer for the removal of respondent 2 by quo warranto from the post of an Assistant Director of Publicity and Information. In the counter-affidavit produced on behalf of Government of which the deponent is ...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Engineering Works Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MysLJ393; [1968]21STC193(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The source of these two revision petitions is the exercise of revisional power by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 21(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act in respect of an assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62. 2. The petitioner before us is a dealer called the Eastern Engineering Works. There was a contract between the petitioner and other concerns for the installation of electrical fittings, which, according to the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, 'involved supplying and fixing of electrical goods'. The further finding of the Deputy Commissioner was that the dealer charged the customers 'consolidated rates for the materials consumed and the labour charges involved in carrying out such contracts.' The Commercial Tax Officer accepted the plea of the petitioner that there was no sale of the goods used or consumed in the execution of the contracts, and his finding was that the contracts were works contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Indian Telephone Indus ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ888Kant
ORDER[On issues (10), (11) and (12)] 1. The Government of Mysore have referred two points of dispute between the workmen and the management of the Indian Telephone Industries, Ltd., Bangalore-16. They are : '(1) Are the workmen of the Indian Telephone Industries, Ltd., Dooravaninagar, Bangalore-16, justified in demanding 15 percent and 20 percent of their annual average earnings as profit-sharing bonus for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively in addition to the then existing production bonus, in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (2) If not, what is the amount of profit-sharing bonus the workmen are entitled to ?' 2. The parties filed the claim statement and the rejoinder respectively and other issues were settled arising out of those pleadings. Three of those issues were argued as those relate to questions of law and no questions of facts are involved. They are as follows : '(1) Whether this tribunal can go into the applicability of Art. 14 of the Constitution, and i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »