Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR1054; (1969)IILLJ460Kant; (1968)2MysLJ541
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, Mundevadi was an Assistant Engineer in the State of Bombay before he wa allotted to the new State of Mysore under the provisions of the States Reorganization Act. On 30 September 1957, when the Mysore State Electricity Board, which will hereafter be referred to in this judgment as the Board, was constituted under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948; he became an employee of that Board, and, as declared by Government by their notification of 20/23 September, 1957, he ceased to be a Government servant with effect that date.2. But, on 3 March 1966, the Board transferred the petitioner as an Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State, and, by an order made by Government which appeared in the gazette of 10 March 1966, he was posted as such Executive Engineer. He took charge of that post and continued in it until 10 July 1968, when Government placed him under suspension. That order of suspension was also published in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant77; AIR1969Mys77; ILR1968KAR824; (1968)2MysLJ200
ORDER1. When I disposed of the Civil Revision Petition by my order dated 20th June 1968 whereby I set aside the order of the lower Court, Mr. Hiremath, the learned counsel for the respondents, was not present. He has made the above application explaining the circumstances of his absence and praying that he may be given a hearing after restoring the revision petition.2. Though it was initially contended that I should apply the principles stated by Byers, J. in the case reported in A. Ramamurthy Iyer v. Meenakshisundarammal AIR 1945 Mad 103 which are said to have been applied by another learned Judge of this Court in some other matters and hold that I have no power to restore a revision petition disposed of for default or in the absence of counsel, the objection was not seriously pressed. I am also of the opinion that the statement about the absence (extent?) of the court's power stated in such wide terms by Byers J. cannot be accepted. If in spite of the fact that Section 115 contains n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR855; (1969)1MysLJ523; [1968]22STC536(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The turnover of Muniswamappa who is a dealer in Doddaballapur was assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 and he was called upon to pay the tax determined by those orders of assessment. Muniswamappa preferred appeals from those orders of assessment to the Deputy Commissioner under section 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and asked for a stay of the enforcement of the orders made by the Commercial Tax Officer. On those stay applications the Deputy Commissioner made an order on 19th February, 1968, calling upon the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee in respect of the sum of money due from him under the orders of assessment. Against this order, the petitioner preferred appeals to the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal complaining against the insistence on the production of a bank guarantee. Those appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had the discretion to select...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR835; (1968)2MysLJ491
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order of the Government dated 28-6-1966 regularising the services of Respondents 2 to 9 who had been appointed as local candidates to certain teaching posts in the Government Medical Colleges and the Government Dental College. In W. P. No. 858 of 1967 the petitioner had also asked for quashing the Government Order dated 28-2-67 promoting Respondent 8 as Assistant Professor in medicine; and for a mandamus directing the State Government to appoint him as an Assistant Professor in Medicine with effect from 28-2-1967.2. At the outset it is convenient to trace the development of rules regulating recruitment to teaching posts in the Government Medical Colleges and the Government Dental College.3. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, the Governor of Mysore made on 1-12-1960 rules called the Mysore Medical Department Serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant13; AIR1970Mys13; (1969)1MysLJ244
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J.1. These appeals brought on behalf of the Union of India and the Post Master General, Madras Circle (Defendants Nos. 1 and 2) are directed against the judgment and decrees of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore in Original Suits Nos. 37 and 38 of 1959. Original Suit No. 37 of 1959 was a suit brought by Respondents in Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 1962 for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and Original Suit No. 38 of 1959 was a suit brought by the Respondent in Regular First Appeal No. 152 of 1962 for damages for personal injuries. 2. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 37 of 1959 are the parents of Subhas Alva, hereinafter called Subhas, who died in the accident. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 38 of 1959 is Jeevaraj Alva, herein--after called Jeevaraj and he is the elder brother of the said Subhas. In July 1958 Subhas and Jeevaraj were students in the Arya Vidya Shala, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore City. The Railway Mail Service office ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ1459
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. The petitioner in this case was the accused in or. Case No. 1826 of 1967 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Bijapur. The offences which have been alleged against him were those punishable under Section 186 and Section 504 or the Penal Code. On the date which had been fixedfor hearing, the pleader the accused filed an application (dated 25.8-1967) taking an objection on the ground that as there was no complaint but only a police report, the court could not take cognizance of the offence underS. 186, Penal Code in view or the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The learned Magistrate dismissed this application of the accused, A revision petition (Criminal Revision Petition 28 of 1967) filed against the said order and which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, was also dismissed. Hence the present revision petition before this Court.2. I have heard Sri K. A. Swami, the learned A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1970CriLJ111
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a preliminary order dated 10-6-1968 made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Margalore under Section 112, Criminal P. C. The petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition was respondent No. 8 in that preliminary order. By that preliminary order, the present petitioner (along with others shown as the respondents in that order) has been called upon to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000 and to furnish two sureties each in a like sum, for keeping peace for a period of one year.2. The main contention which has been urged by Mr. K. Shivashankar Bhat learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, is that the said preliminary order merely makes a citation of certain past incidents and that it does not contain any material, on the face of it, to show that the Magistrate had formed an opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 107, Criminal P. C,3. So f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ1169
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. The respondent though served has not appeared.2. What has been challenged in this revision petition is the validity of an order made under Section 488 of the Criminal P C. by the Munsiff Magistrate, Aurad and which in revision hag been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bidar.3. The only contention which has been urged by Mir. Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that the mandatory requirement of Sub-section (6) of Section 488 of the Criminal P.C. has not been complied with, in the present case. The learned Magistrate depended upon the evidence adduced by way of affidavits, to reach his conclusions and evidence was not recorded in the manner required under Sub-section (6) of Section 488, Criminal P.C.4. In AIR 1968 Mys 174, Naranappa v. Puttamma, it has been pointed out by this Court that the combined effect of the provisions of Sections 488(6), 244 and 355 of the Criminal P.C. is that a Magistrate holding an enquiry under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)1MysLJ35; [1969]23STC47(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. A certain Kabadi who was carrying on business as a radio and cloth dealer at Gadag was a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. On 28th February, 1963, the whole of his business was purchased by Bhandage who is the petitioner in these four revision petitions. When he made the purchase, Kabadi's turnover for the period between 1st April, 1962, and 30th June, 1962, had been assessed to sales tax by an order of assessment made on 6th December, 1962. The turnover relating to the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 formed the subject-matter of subsequent assessment proceedings in which assessments were respectively made in the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. When the tax and penalty payable by Kabadi were not paid by the petitioner, an application was presented to the Judicial Magistrate, Gadag, under section 13(3) of the Act for their recovery. The petitioner's objection to that recovery which rested on more than one ground was negatived, and these revision petitions ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1970CriLJ1318
H. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kolar in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1966 convicting the appellant Budalph Gregory for an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The charge against the appellant is that on the night of 20.7.1964 between 9-40 p. m. and 1 a.m. he kidnapped Miss Gane Royle aged 15 years from the lawful guardianship of her father V. M. Boyle of Champion Reefs, K.G. P. in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. There was another charge against the appellant under Section 876 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he committed rape on Miss Gene Boyle on 2.4.1964 near Orogaum Dairy within the limits of Champion Beefs Police Station, K. G. F. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of this charge and the State has not p...
Tag this Judgment!