Karnataka Court August 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cyril Lobo and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant18; AIR1971Mys18; (1970)2MysLJ410
Chandhashekhar, J.1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1382 of 1970 is a helper in a motor-lorry. He had applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Managlore (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. O.), for issue of a licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. His application was rejected by the R. T. O. on the ground that he did not possess experience as provided by Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner has challenged the validity of Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5. He has also challenged the Notification of the Government dated 11-3-1970 by which Rule 5 has been amended by deleting Sub-rule (7) therein. He has also prayed for a mandamus directing the R. T. O. (Respondent 2) to - issue him the driving licence as applied for.2. The petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 1383 and 1914 of 1970 are owners of Motor Driving Schools in which training is imparted in driving motor vehicles, including light, medium and heavy mot...
Smt. Radha Bai Vs. Surendra K. Mudaliar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant69; AIR1971Mys69; (1970)2MysLJ377
V.S. Malimath, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife of the respondent against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, In M. C. No. 20 of 1970 directing the appellant to hand over the custody of the child Saraswathi to the respondent-husband.2. The respondent filed the suit on 8th of April 1970 against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent also filed an Interim Application No. 1 on the 8th of April 1970 under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and prayed for the custody of his child Saraswathi, who is about 3 1/2 years old, pending disposal of the main case. That application was seriously contested by the appellant-wife. The learned Civil judge has allowed the respondent's application and made an order for restoration of the custody of the child Saraswathi in favour of the respondent-husband.3. It is the correctness of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge that is challenge...
Leo Sequiera Vs. Magdalene Sequiera Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant143; AIR1971Mys143; (1970)2MysLJ551
Honniah, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the sons of Monthu Sequiera and Magdalene Sequiera Bai, against an order of the District Judge, South Kanara dismissing the petition filed by him and other children of Monthu Sequiera and his mother for letters of administration with the Will annexed in respect of a Will dated 28-10-1955 executed by Monthu Sequiera and his wife Magdalene Sequiera. Monthu Sequiera died on 1-7-1965.2. The learned District Judge even without issuing the citation, dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the will had not become operative inasmuch as the same being a joint will it would come into force only after the death of both the testators and since Magdalene Sequiera was alive, the petition was not maintainable. Incidentally he held that the petition did not relate to all the properties disclosed in the will as standing in the name of Monthu Sequiera as the petitioners had confined only to a few items mentioned in the will.3. The document in question i...
Anjanappa Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant326; AIR1971Mys326; (1971)1MysLJ390
Honniah, J.1. The question thatarises for consideration in this appeal is whether an appellant, whose lands have been acquired under the Land Actuation Act, as in force in the State of Mysore, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court on a reference to it under Section 18 of the Act appeals to the High Court, is bound to include in the valuation of his appeal, fifteen per cent of the market value of the land, which is statutory allowance payable under Section 23(2) of the Act and pay Court fee thereon, or whether he is entitled to value the appeal excluding the statutory allowance on the basis of difference between the claim and the amount awarded by the lower Court. The answer to the question turns on the true construction of Section 48 of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958 to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Court Fees Act', which provides that the fee payable under this Act on a memoran...
B. Shambumal Gangaram and anr. Vs. the State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant156; AIR1971Mys156; (1970)2MysLJ577
Honniah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the State Bank of Mysore, represented by its General Manager, against B. Shambhumull Gangaram, a firm of Bankers, represented by its sole proprietor B. S. G. Chagganmull (1st defendant) and B. S. G. Chagganmull personally (2nd defendant) to recover Rs. 1,61,272.45 with current and future interest and costs as money due to the Bank on accounts in respect of which the second defendant on behalf of himself and the firm had executed two memoranda of deposit of title deeds, each for Rs. l,00,000/- dated 14-8-1950 and 21-8-1950. thereby mortgaging the properties shown in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedules and by sale of the schedule properties other than those released from time to time by the Bank.2. In or about August 1950 the defendants approached the erstwhile Bank of Mysore Ltd., which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Bank' for purpose of convenience and brevity, for an advance upto a limit of Rs. 2,00,000/-offering the schedule...
Karkal Balakrishna Rao and ors. Vs. State of Mysore Represented by Chi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant125; AIR1971Mys125; (1971)1MysLJ28
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. These seven petitions, in which the validity of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Mysore Act 10 of 1962 as amended by the Mysore Act 14 of 1965), and the Rules framed thereunder is challenged, are heard together. In addition to the declaration that the aforesaid Act and Rules are ultra vires, void and of no effect, they have also sought for an alternative relief for a declaration that the petitioners' holdings which are ryotwari are governed by Section 107 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Land Reforms Act), and thus the provisions of Land Reforms Act do not apply to them. 2. In the first six petitions above-mentioned, the facts are identical. In Writ Petition Nos. 1180 and 3945 of 1968, in addition to the questions raised in the other petitions, a declaration is sought that the petitioners therein are entitled to the exemption provided under Section 107 of the Land Reforms Act as they are tenants of a Religious and Charitable Inst...
The State of Mysore Vs. Boramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant117; AIR1971Mys117; (1971)ILLJ154Kant; (1970)2MysLJ392
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The above second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Narayana Pai, J. because he found that the questions relating to limitation raised in this case were of importance and not free from difficulty and that he considered that it was desirable that the appeal should be heard by a Division Bench. 2. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not chosen to engage a lawyer. Narayana Pai, J. by an order appointed Mr. G. D. Shirgurkar, an Advocate of this Court as amicus curiae to assist the court in the disposal of this case. We thank Mr. G. D. Sirgurkar for the assistance rendered by him. 3. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff in O. S. 130 of 1962 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Mysore, against the State of Mysore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 648 by way of salary and dear-ness allowance for a period of seven months due to him from 30-1-1959 to 30-8-1959 and a sum of Rs. 30 towards notice charges. He also pray...
Mysore Lamp Works Workmen Vs. Management of Mysore Lamp Works and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1970
Reported in: [1971(22)FLR53]; (1970)IILLJ617Kant; (1970)2MysLJ364
1. This is a petition by the workmen of the Mysore Lamp Works Ltd., Bangalore, represented by the General Secretary, Mysore Lamp Works Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as the Employees' Association). The petitioners have prayed for quashing the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in an industrial dispute between the said workmen and the management of the Mysore Lamp Works Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the management). The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of M. L. Janakiram Naidu, who was the General Secretary of the Employees' Association, by the management. The Tribunal also held that the workmen were not entitled to wages for the period commencing from 22-8-67. 2. We may state certain material facts which are not in dispute. In May 1967 a printed Kannada pamphlet, styled as a letter addressed to the Chief Minister of Mysore, was issued in the name of M. L. Janakiram Naidu, purporting to be on behalf of the Emp...
T. Shair Saheb and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant26; AIR1971Mys26; (1970)2MysLJ321
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions and the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (the State and the Deputy Commissioner) are all first division clerks at present. Respondents other ' than respondents 1 and 2 are the persons in regard to whose promotions the petitioners feel aggrieved. These respondents are referred to as respondents hereinafter.2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are seniors to the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved with respect to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner made on 9th January 1965 and 14th September 1965. It is not disputed that on these two dates the petitioners had passed qualifying examinations required for promotion. The order dated 9th January 1965 and the one dated 14th September 1965 are marked as Annexures 'G' and 'H' respectively. In these orders respondents who are juniors are promoted as first division clerks while the petitioners are promoted long afterwards. It is the grievance of...
Chinnamma Vs. Srinivas and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant28; AIR1971Mys28; (1970)2MysLJ306
1. This second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by an order made under the proviso to Section 6 of the Mysore High Court Act. 1961 by Govinda Bhat J. on 29-8-1969 in view of the fact that the appeal raises a substantial question of law regarding the applicability of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act (Mysore Act X of 1933) (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act of 1933) to Hindus who are permanent residents of erstwhile Madras State and who had acquired properties in the area of the old Mysore State.2. This second appeal arises out of a suit, O. S. No. 539 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff, Mysore, filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of one-third share in the plaint schedule properties with mesne profits from date of suit. In the schedule attached to the plaint, there are eight items of properties. Items 1, 5 and 6 are houses and Items 2, 3, 4. 7 and 8 are agricultural lands. Item 1 is situated in Mysore City. Items 2 to 8 are situated in ...