Karnataka Court April 1968 Judgments
Thyavanige Village Panchayat Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Di ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MysLJ341
Chandrashekhar, J.1. A division Bench of the court has referred to this Full Bench the following two questions of law:(1). Whether consultation with the Taluk Board provided under Section 3(2) of the Act (The Mysore Village Panchayats & Local Boards Act, 1959) is mandatory and the failure to consult renders the action taken invalid and inoperative. (2). Whether action taken under Section 3(2) of the Act is not amenable to review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?2. The reference of the first of these two questions was necessitated by the conflict between decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. In K. Venkategowda v. State of Mysore, (1963) 1 Mys LJ 150 the Bench consisting of Somnath Iyer and Mr. Iqbal Hussain, JJ., held that the notification impugned in that case, made under Section 3(2) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), could not be sustained as it was not made after consultation with the Taluk Board...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Sharada Bai Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant162; AIR1969Mys162; ILR1968KAR368
Govinda Bhat, J.The questions referred to the Full Bench are:1. Whether under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the only restriction imposed on a landlord is that he shall not let, occupy or permit to be occupied building referred to in sub-section (1) for a period of 15 days from the date on which intimation of vacancy is received by the Controller or within a period of one week after the termination of the proceedings under Section 8, if any, whichever is later, and whether the said restriction will stand removed on the Controller granting permission to the landlord?ORWhether the restriction above referred to is an absolute restriction and whether the permission of the Controller is an additional requirement to be complied with by the landlord even after the termination of the periods specified in the said sub-section (2)?2. If the answer is in the affirmative to the first alternative to the first alternative in the above question, then is sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadguru Sachidananda Shankarabharathi Swami of Sri Kudli Sringeri Mu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant95; AIR1969Mys95; 1969CriLJ423; (1968)2MysLJ464
ORDER1. The above revision petition is directed against the order passed by the City Magistrate, Bangalore, on 30-8-1967 refusing to extend exemption to appear before the Court till the disposal of the case.2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in a fake note case pending on the file of the City Magistrate, Bangalore. The allegation against him is that he purchased 4508 counterfeit currency notes of 10 rupee denomination valued at Rupees 45,080/- from A-2 and A-3 between 8-4-1965 and 13-8-1965 which constituted and offence punishable under Section 489B, I.P.C. Further the act of A-4 in allowing and giving facilities to A-2 and A-3 in his press at Bangalore to cut the said counterfeit currency notes into sizes which constitutes a part of the process of counterfeiting currency notes and thereby abetted the cutting of the said counterfeit notes in his press at Bangalore by A-2 and A-3 between 10-8-1965 and 13-8-1965 which constitutes an offence under S. 489A read with S. 109, I.P.C. Furthe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›