Karnataka Court February 1971 Judgments
Syndicate Bank Vs. Vincent Robert Lobo
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ46Kant; (1971)1MysLJ437
ORDER1. This petition under S. 115, C.P.C., is by the defendant in O.S. No. 369 of 1966, on the file of the Munsiff at Mangalore, South Kanara. It is directed against an order, recording findings on issues 25 and 26 arising therein. 2. Issue No. 25 relates to the question whether the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that he had availed himself of the remedy provided by the Industrial Disputes Act, and pursuant to the doctrine of election of remedies. Issue No. 26 relates to the question whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of the bar of jurisdiction clearly implied by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. For the purpose of appreciating the contention urged at the Bar, it is necessary to set out briefly certain material allegations in the plaint. The plaintiff was formerly an employee of the Catholic Bank. By virtue of S. 45 of the Banking Companies Act, the said bank was merged with the Syndicate Bank, the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraju Vs. K. Ramaraju and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant261; AIR1971Mys261; (1971)1MysLJ412
ORDER1. The first defendant is the petitioner in this revision petition and the short question that is raised is as to whether the question relating to the claim of status of the defendant as a tenant is required to be referred to the Munsiff's Court at Kolar for adjudication. Respondent No. 1 - the first plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 17/65 for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the land in dispute. The contention of the first defendant was that he is cultivating the suit land as a tenant and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of the land from the tenant. It was also contended that the first defendant is a deemed tenant. 2. In view of the defendant's contention an issue was framed, viz., issue No. 11, which reads as follows: 'Issue No. 11: Is it true that the first defendant is a tenant or a deemed tenant of the suit land r' 3. As per the order passed on 13-6-1968, this issue was sent to the land Tribunal, Kolar, for a finding and the proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Bheemal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1261
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this petition, the State has contended that the sentence passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Chittapur on the respondent on 17-3-1970 in C. C, No. 165/3/70, is not according to law.2. The few facts necessary for a decision in this case are as follows:A charge sheet was filed against the respondent alleging that at about 11 a.m. on 24-12-1969 the respondent was found in possession of two bottles each containing 650 M. L. of illicitly distilled liquor and as such he had committed an offence punishable Under Section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the respondent being produced before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate put the substance of the accusation to the respondent as follows:It is alleged by the prosecution that you were found in possession of I. D. Liquor of two bottles and same was seized under a panchanama. Show cause why you should not be convicted Under Section 34, Excise Act.The respondent state...
Tag this Judgment!Letitia Castelino Vs. Jerome D'silva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant28; AIR1972Mys28; (1971)2MysLJ157
1. This is a plaintiff's Second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore in Appeal Suit No. 212 of 1964, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Mangalore in O. S. No. 472 of 1962. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on the 11th of January 1962, which has been produced in this case as Exhibit A-1, under which the plaintiff agreed to purchase certain immoveable properties which belonged to the defendant for an agreed price of Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the agreed price of Rs. 20,000/- a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date of the agreement. The balance of consideration of Rs. 18,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Under the agreement, the possession of the property was to be delivered on the date of registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was agreed to be drawn within 15 days from the date of Exhibit A-1. The vendor, on being informed, was to execute and get the docu...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Ibrahim and anr. Vs. Mandepanda Cariappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant298; AIR1971Mys298; (1971)1MysLJ453
Venkataramiah, J. 1. These three petitions arise out of three suits instituted in the Court of the Munsiff, Viraipet, by the respondent who happens to be the landlord of the three petitioners for recovery of possession of the respective premises let out to each of the petitioners in these petitions and for recovery of arrears of rent and other reliefs. All the three suits were instituted on 17-6-1968. The respondent alleged in his plaints presented in the three suits that the petitioners were his tenants who had committed default in the payment of rent and that he had duly terminated their tenancies by issue of proper notices to quit as provided under the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners in their written statement admitted that they were tenants under the respondent, but raised certain pleas with regard to the claim made by the respondent in the suits and prayed that the suits be dismissed. After the written statements were filed in all the suits, the court below framed issues...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Paimlee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1462
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this petition, the State has challenged the correctness of the sentence passed by the Munisiff-Magistrate, Chittapur, in C. C. No. 164/3 of 1970, 17-3-1970 while convicting the respondent for an offence Under Section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in the course of this order).2. The prosecution case is that the respondent, was, on 24-12-1969 at 11-30 a.m., found in possession of one bottle containing 650 milliliters of illicitly distilled liquor and, therefore, had committed an offence punishable Under Section 34 of the Act.3. The records go to show that when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to the respondent as per Section 242 of the Criminal P.C., the respondent pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate accepted the plea and proceeded to convict and sentence the respondent as narrated above.4. The contention of the State Public Prosecutor is that the learned Magistrate while i...
Tag this Judgment!K.C.D. Swamy Vs. Leela Marathey and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant251; AIR1971Mys251; (1971)1MysLJ305
ORDERH.B. Datar, J. 1. These two revision petitions arise out of two applications filed in Ex. 48/70 and 49/70, arising out of O. S Nos. 73 and 74/67, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge. Civil Station. Bangalore. Both the decrees are consent decrees and the execution of these decrees is sought. 2. Applications were filed in the said execution cases, viz., I. A. II in C. R. p. 1620/70 and I. A. III in C. R. P. 1621 of 1970, under the provisions of Section 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders Act, praying for the modification of the decree and requesting that the amount be directed to be paid by instalments. The learned Civil Judge considered both the applications and has dismissed them holding that the judgment-debtor cannot ask the Court below to pass an ordergranting relief under Section 27, in the absence of the consent of the decree-holder. It is against these two orders dismissing the applications under Section 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders Act that the present two revision pet...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ406
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Manealore in C. C. No. 2239 of 1967. convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 111 (d) read with Section 135 of the Customs Act. 1962 (hereinafter referred to in the course of this order as 'the Act') and Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules 1963. dealing with gold control (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' in the course of this order), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the counts, and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1969 by the Sessions Judge. South Kanara.2. The prosecution case is that at about 12.30 p. m. on 11-1-1965. P. W.1 Nagaraj, a Sub-Inspector in Central Excise Department and working as such in Customs Special Preventive Branch at Mangalore. was on patrol duty at Hampanakatta bus stand in Mangalore town. He observed the petitioner Setting d...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Parameshwaran and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Mysore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: (1971)ILLJ649Kant
ORDERNarayana Pai, C.J.1. The common question that arises in these writ petitions is the sustainability of the claim by these petitioners that their seniority as Junior Assistants in the Secretariat of the State Government should be determined by taking into account their service either at the Secretariat or in other departments of the Government prior to the 7th October, 1961. The question arises in the following way : 2. Of the petitioners, one was an allottee from the State of Bombay and the other two were serving the Government of the erstwhile State of Mysore in different departments. They were later transferred to serve as First Division Clerks in the Secretariat. After the reorganisation of States, allottees from different integrating areas came to the Secretariat. In view of the conflicting interests of persons coming from various integrating areas and also those who were directly recruited to serve in the Secretariat and those who came by transfer from other departments of the...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Parameshwaran Sinkunny Nair and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary to t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant263; AIR1971Mys263
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The common question that arises in these writ petitions is the sustainability of the claim by these petitioners that their seniority as Junior Assistants in the Secretariat of the State Government should be determined by taking into account their service either at the Secretariat or in other Departments of the Government prior to the 7th of October, 1961. The question arises in the following way:2. Of the petitioners, one was an allottee from the State of Bombay and the other two were serving the Government of the erstwhile State of Mysore in different Departments. They were later transferred to serve as First Division Clerks in the Secretariat. After the Reorganisation of States, allottees from different intergrating areas came to the Secretariat. In view of the conflicting interests of persons coming from various integrating areas and also those who were directly recruited to serve in the Secretariat and those who came by transfer from other Departments of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »