Karnataka Court March 1969 Judgments
Malegowda Vs. Mugaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant315; AIR1969Mys315; 1969CriLJ1251
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the order made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal on 20-12-1966 in favour of the respondents in this petition is an order as contemplated by Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts leading to this question may briefly be stated as follows:--In the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a preliminary order was passed on 4-3-1952. The dispute related to the possession of Inam land bearing Survey Number 237 of Bellekare Inam Village. The Magistrate thereafter made an order on 15-12-1952 to the following effect. 'Both parties submit that they have no evidence to adduce in this court. Hence they are directed to settle their claim in a competent court. The attachment of the schedule property and the receiver appointed to manage the property shall continue under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and 146(2) Cr.P.C. respectively pending production of an order...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Nagaraja Rao Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1969
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas621(Kar); (1969)2MysLJ83
Tukol, J.1. The petitioner entered into the service of the respondent, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, as sales officer, grade II, in 1962. The service of the petitioner were terminated by a memo (exhibit G) dated December 26, 1966, with effect from the date of the receipt of the that letter on payment of the one month's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner then appealed to the managing director against the aforesaid order. He was informed by a letter on February 13, 1967, that they were unable to alter the decision regarding the termination of his services. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on June 22, 1967, for a writ of certiorari or writ of the mandamus or other appropriate writ quashing the order of the termination of his services. In his petition he has contended that the order of termination had been passed by the personnel officer who was not competent to pass such order under clause 7 of the terms and conditions of appointment. He also contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Bellary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant49; AIR1970Mys49; (1969)2MysLJ587
Venkataswami, J.1. This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against a communication made by the Regional Transport Officer, Bellary, on 29/31-1-1966, calling upon the petitioner to produce vehicles commercially known as 'Diesel Mogurt Dumpers -- DR SO Model' for registration under the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The communication has further cautioned the petitioner that it would be an offence to use the vehicles without proper registration under the Act.2. The prayer of the petitioner is for the Issue of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the said communication with a further direction to the R. T. O. (respondent) to forbear from insisting upon the registration of the Dumpers belonging to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Act, and from visiting the consequences of non-legist ration on the petitioner.3. The few facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as follows: The Petitioner-company is ...
Tag this Judgment!Poovamma and ors. Vs. Sumathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant81; AIR1970Mys81; (1969)2MysLJ17
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree in Original Petition (L. A. C.) No. 76 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara. That petition arose on a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, for apportionment among the claimants of the compensation awarded for acquiring 79 cents of land in T. S. No. 265 in Mangalore Town. The learned Subordinate Judge held that respondents-claimants 11 to 18 were solely entitled to the entire compensation, Feeling aggrieved by that decision, claimants 2, 4 to 7 and 19 have preferred this appeal impleading Claimants 11 to 18 as respondents.2. At the hearing of the appeal Mr. K. R. D. Karanth, learned counsel for respondents, raised the following two preliminary objections to the appeal:(i) The appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata, as the appellants did not appeal from the decree in the suit which was decided along with the Original petition by a common judgment; and (ii) The entir...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha Bai Vs. Returning Officer, City Municipality Elections, Gulbar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Kant35; AIR1971Mys35
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner had filed her nomination paper for election to the reserved seat of 'A' Division consisting of Brahmapur area of Gulbarga Municipality. There were two other candidates who had filed their nomination papers to the same division. When the nomination papers came up for scrutiny before the Returning Officer on 2-12-1968, objections were raised for accepting the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that she is disqualified under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964, hereinafter called the Act. The Returning Officer upheld the objections on the ground that the petitioner being a teacher in the girls' high school known as Nutan Vidyalaya High School, which is an aided institution was a holder of an office of profit and therefore not qualified to be chosen as and for being a councillor. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of the said rejection. She seeks the issue of a writ of certior...
Tag this Judgment!Deepchand Vs. Sampathraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mys34; 1970CriLJ260; (1969)1MysLJ606
ORDER1. The petitioner was the accused in C. C. 3227, of 1966 in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore. The respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner accused for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts leading to the complaint may be briefly stated as follows:--The complainant and the accused are both businessmen. The accused was involved in what is known as Gold Control Order case wherein the complainant was examined as a witness in support of the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination of the complainant, learned Counsel Sri Chandra Kumar who appeared for the accused in that case put the five questions mentioned in the complaint. According to the complainant, those questions were put at the instance of the accused with a view to harm the complainant's reputation and standing in the business community of Bangalore and also with intent to lower his character. He further alleged that the imputations made by ...
Tag this Judgment!B.B. Mali Patil Vs. Sreedar Rao Patil and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant60; AIR1970Mys60; (1969)2MysLJ135
Tukol, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 554 of 1966.2. The case of the petitioner Is that ho was plying a Stage Carriage Service from Koppal to Kawloor via Halligere, Wadegenhal, Handral, Mianalli and Alwandi. He had filed an application on September 80, 1965, before the Regional Transport Authority, Raichur, for variation of the existingroute and timings. The change in the route was that instead of going from Wadegenhal to Mainalli via Handral, it should be via Hiresindogi. The application was duly notified on October 28, 1965 inviting objections before November 30, 1965. The date of hearing was December 15, 1965. No objections were received in time. The 1st Respondent filed his objections on January 10, 1966; but the same were rejected on the ground that they were not submitted within the notified date. The R...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Venkatachaliah Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: [1971(21)FLR377]; (1971)ILLJ41Kant; (1970)1MysLJ380
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The source of this writ petition is an application filed by the petitioner who was an employee in the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation for a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application was presented on June 6, 1962, and the dispute concerned the dismissal of the petitioner from service on August 13, 1957. 2. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was established on August 1, 1961, and the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department were entitled to opt for service in the Corporation. Since the petitioner by then had been dismissed, that option was not and could not be made available to him. The dispute which was sought to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal was the dispute concerning the prayer for reinstatement which the petitioner had made. 3. That application presented by the petitioner under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed by Government on February 2, 1966 on t...
Tag this Judgment!Elkal Padmasettappa Ajjappa and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Chitr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant52; AIR1970Mys52
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The questions of law arising in these Writ petitions are common and so can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The material facts are these: The petitioners are registered dealers in the State of Mysore and they carry on a trade either in hides and skins or in copra and coconuts or in oil seeds. All these goods are declared goods as defined by explanation to Section 5 (4) of the Mysore Safes Tax Act, which will be referred to in this order as the State Act, and, as stated in the third item of the fourth schedule to that Act, the point of levy of sales tax is the purchase by the last dealer in the State. Similarly, item 5 (b) in that schedule states that in respect of coconut and copra, the first of the earliest of purchasers in the State is liable to pay the tax. Item 5 (d) of that schedule makes the first of the earliest of the successive purchasers in the State liable to pay sales tax on oil seeds. 3. In respect of hides and skins, Item 3 was subjected to an am...
Tag this Judgment!i.P. Munavalli Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR529(KAR); [1969]74ITR529(Karn); (1970)1MysLJ28
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference at the instance of the assessee is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The father, I. P. Munavalli, and the son, C. I. Munavalli, are the assessees and the assessment year is 1963-64. The Hindu undivided family of which I. P. Munavalli was the karta, was carrying on a business in foodgrains and pulses and no November 9, 1961, according to the statement of the case submitted to us, the father and the son entered to the statement of the case submitted to us, the father and the son entered into an agreement of partnership under which the son become a working partner and the other partner was the joint family of which the father was the karta. The profits and losses had to be share equally by the two partners.3. When the assessees made an application for registration of the firm under section 185 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer refused registration on the ground that there was no partition betwe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›