Karnataka Court January 1969 Judgments
Shankarappa Gurappa Kirahagi Vs. Ramanagowda Sahebagowda Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant297; AIR1969Mys297; 1969CriLJ1250; (1969)1MysLJ420
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the preliminary orders dated 31-8-1968, under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bijapur Division, Bijapur in Misc. Sr. 5/68. By the aforesaid orders, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there existed a dispute between the two parties about possession of C. B. No. 415 of Bhairwadgi measuring 14 acres 26 guntas; that there was likelihood breach of peace and therefore directed of both the parties to attend his court in person or through counsel to put in their respective claims in regard to actual possession of the land in question and also as he came to the conclusion that it was a case of emergent nature, he attached the standing crops in an area of about 6 acres in the disputed land and appointed the Tahsildar Bagewadi as receiver to take possession of the entire disputed land, including the standing crops.2. The facts which are not very much in dispute are these: ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalaiah and anr. Vs. Arasaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant275; AIR1969Mys275; ILR1969KAR526; (1969)1MysLJ383
Tukol, J.1. The short but important question that arises for decision in these two writ petitions is whether the Respondent, Election Officer, was right in declining to announce in the Meeting that the two Petitioners had been respectively elected uncontested as Chairman and Vice-Chairman on the ground that there was no quorum for that meeting.2. It is undisputed that the Respondent called a meeting of the panchayat at 1 P.M. on November 23, 1968 in the office of the Kora Group Panchayat for election to the Offices of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4221 filed his nomination paper for the office of the Chairman while the other petitioner filed his nomination paper for the office of the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat. There were no other contestants for any of these Offices. The meeting commenced at 1 P.M. as scheduled and even though the members of the Panchayat that had assembled for the meeting waited till 3 P.M. there was no quorum. The meetin...
Tag this Judgment!Khazi Khurshid Ahmed Vs. Union of India by Home Secretary, New Delhi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant346; AIR1969Mys346; (1969)1MysLJ415
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on July 21, 1950, as an accountant in the department of social service of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and was confirmed in that post on March 29, 1952. He was promoted as a second grade clerk on December 4, 1953.2. Respondent 4 was appointed as a third grade clerk on July 19, 1949 in what was called the 'Scheduled Castes Trust Fund' which it is stated was a private fund founded by the Nizam of Hyderabad. The petitioner states that the employees of that fund were not Government servants, and, that that is so is clear from the order made by the Government of Hyderabad State on October 20, 1955 under which the existing staff of the Scheduled Castes Trust Fund were treated as Government servants and placed under the control of the Director, Social Welfare Department.3. Respondent 4 had become a second grade clerk in the service of that fund with effect from February 15, 1951, and, when the Government of the Hyderabad State made their order ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Corporation Vs. the Director, Enforcement Derectorate, Gover ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ295
Narayana Pai, J.1. Messrs New India Corporation named as the petitioner in these four Writs Petitions, appears to be the trade name or the name and style under which the deponent of the affidavit V.V. Iyer, is trading. According to the affidavit, except for some period between 1954 and 1958, during which there were , others trading with him in partnership for the rest of the period, he was trading alone as sole proprietor of the trade and business.2. These four writ petitions are occasioned by the four notices served on the petitioners by the Director of Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by Section 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, should not be instituted against him for or in respect of four alleged contraventions by him of specified provisions of said Act, Sections 4(1), 5(1). (a), 5(1)(d) and 9. The petitioner has presented these petitions almost ...
Tag this Judgment!City Municipal Council, Bellary Vs. Union of India Owning Southern Rai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant37; AIR1970Mys37; ILR1969KAR491; (1969)2MysLJ167
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In this suit, which has been withdrawn to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution, from the Court of the Civil Judge, Bellary, in which it was originally instituted, the plaintiff is the City Municipal Council of Bellary, and the defendant is the Union of India, owning the Southern Railway. The plaintiff, which will be referred to in the course of this judgment as the municipal council, asks for a declaration that it has the right to levy and collect the taxes enumerated in paragraph 5 of the plaint in respect of properties owned by the Union of India and situate within the municipal limits of Bellary. It also asks to make a decree against the Union of India for a sum of Rupees 38,988.2. It is undisputed that the Union of India which owns the Southern Railway, is the owner of sixty-five buildings and twenty vacant lands which are situate within the municipal limits of the Bellary City Municipality. It is also not controverted that in respect of these eighty-...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Gopalakrishna Vs. A.S. Machayya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant337; AIR1969Mys337; (1969)1MysLJ328
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 333 of 1967 in the Court of the Munsiff at Mercara. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the foot path shown in the plan, is a pedestrian footpath, and not a public road for vehicular traffic, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the same and from removing the gate put up by him on the said footpath. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction prayed for by the plaintiff. In the appeal filed by the defendants against the said order, the learned Civil Judge, Mercara, vacated the said order of temporary injunction. This revision is directed against the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge.2. Sri V. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that when the order of the trial Court was reasonably possible, it was not proper for the appellate Court to interfere with the discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Honnayya (H.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ539Kant
ORDERNarayana Pal, J. 1. The petitioner impugns an order reducing his pension by 33 1/2 per cent passed by the State Government, a copy whereof has been produced as Ex. B. The order is passed in exercise of the powers of the Government under rule 212 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, which reads : 'Government may make such reduction as it may think fit in the amount of the pension of the Government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory.' 2. It is common ground that no notice was given to the petitioner nor was he provided with any opportunity otherwise to show cause against the order being passed. 3. Apart from the merits of the opinion on which we need not say anything, the only legal defence sought to be made out on behalf of the State is that the order being an administrative order, the petitioner was not entitled to previous notice or to an opportunity to show cause against the same. 4. We do not think that the defence can be sustained at all. Before the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!D.G. Venkataramu and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Pandavapura Sahakara ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant1; AIR1970Mys1; [1969(18)FLR392]; (1969)1MysLJ578
ORDER1. 29 Petitioners and 9 others who ware all workers of the first respondent Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane were retrenched by the first respondent without full compliance with all the terms of Section 25-F of the Indus-trial Disputes Act. 1947. On their approaching the Labour Court, that Court made an award on March 22, 19G5 setting aside the orders of retrenchment and directing the management of the Kharkhane to reinstate all of them in their former posts and pay them back wages from the date of retrenchment to the date of reinstatement.2. The employer obeyed the award, reinstated them and paid their back wages. Further dispute was raised by the employee that the award had not been fully implemented, that reinstatement with back wages pursuant to the award amounted to saying that all the employees had throughout remained in the service of the employer as if there had never been any retrenchment, that therefore all consequence flowing from the said legal position should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Potti (S.K.) Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ305Kant; (1969)1MysLJ325
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. When there was re-organization of States, and the new State of Mysore came into being, the petitioner who was an employee in the former State of Bombay became an employee of the new State of Mysore. When the Government of the new State of Mysore prepared a provisional inter-State seniority list on 13 November, 1957, his name was not included in the cadre of the secretariat stenographers. But on representation made by the petitioner to the State Government, his name was included in the revised provisional inter-State seniority list prepared on 13 September, 1962, by which he was assigned the fifth rank. 2. The sequel to the preparation of the provisional inter-State seniority list was the preparation of the final inter-State seniority list by the Central Government which was prepared on 30 April, 1965, and published on 6 May, 1965. That list did not contain the name of the petitioner in the cadre of the secretariat stenographers. In this writ-petition in which the pe...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Byappa and Sons Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1969
Reported in: (1969)1MysLJ427; [1969]24STC34(Kar)
1. The petitioner was carrying on business in chillies as a commission agent of his principals. The transaction relating to the sale of chillies was chargeable to sales tax under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, at the purchase point as can be seen from the 5th item of Schedule three to that Act. But by the order of assessment which the concerned assessing authority made with respect to the year 1959-60 on the turnover relating to chillies, the petitioner was called upon to pay the tax although he was the seller and not the buyer. 2. So, under rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, the petitioner sought a rectification of the assessment since he was only a commission agent who sold chillies on behalf of his principals, and so could not be called upon to pay sales tax which had to be paid only by the purchaser to whom he sold the chillies. 3. The assessing authority dismissed the application and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition which was presented...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »