Karnataka Court June 1971 Judgments
Y. Venkateswara Rao Vs. K. Nagamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant254; AIR1972Mys254; (1971)2MysLJ593
H.B. Datar, J.1. These two revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Bellary, dismissing applications filed by the defendant seeking leave of the court to serve the interrogatories, An application supported by an affidavit and the interrogatories which were sought to be delivered to the plaintiffs, appears to have been filed and the learned Judge while considering that application came to the conclusion that in the present case the interrogatories that were sought to be delivered to the plaintiff are matters relating to the evidence and therefore cannot be allowed to be delivered. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in these revision petitions.2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that these revision petitions are not maintainable on theground that the refusal by the court to give leave to a party to deliver the interrogatories is not a case decided. In support of t...
Tag this Judgment!N. Srinath and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ267Kant
ORDERPer A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioners in these two cases, N. Sreenath and M. A. Somashekar, were directly recruited on May 22, 1962, as Probationary Assistant Directors of Industries and Commerce. After completion of their probation, a formal declaration of satisfactory completion of probation was also made and they were confirmed as Assistant Directors on 17th July, 1965. 2. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 in each of these writ petitions, A. Chinaware Urs, T. V. Appe Gowda and H. R. Ganganna, who were already in service in the department, were promoted to officiate as Assistant Directors of Industries and Commerce, - the first two on 24th October, 1959, and the third on 11th January, 1963. 3. The next promotional post above that of the Assistant Directors is the post of Deputy Director, the appointment to which is by promotion by selection from the cadre of Assistant Directors. In 1964 the State Government appointed a committee called the Departmental Promotions Committee, of which ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahibubsab Hasansab Sindagi Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ418
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The offence with which the petitioner-accused was charged was that he used threatening and indecent language and behaved in a disorderly manner with an intent to provoke a breach of the peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 92 (1) (r) of the Mysore Police Act. 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and further the offence with which the petitioner-accused was charged was that he was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself under the influence of alcohol and behaved indecently in the Police Station which is a public resort .and thereby committed an offence under Section 92 (1) (p) of the said Act.2. So far the offence under clause 1 (r) of Section 92 of the Act is concerned the learned Magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has held that the accused had not committed any offence under the above said Act, and in that view of the matter he acquitted the petitioner-accused. So far as the offence under cla...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. P.V. Motor Serv ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant358; AIR1971Mys358; (1971)2MysLJ197
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The above six writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate order or direction quashing the orders dated 27-2-1970 passed by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as M. S. T. A. T) in Appeals Nos. 568 to 573 of 1969 on its file and also the resolutions dated 9-6-1969 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A.) in subject Nos. 156, 158, 159 and 200 of 1968 against which the aforesaid appeals before the M. S. T. A. T. bad been filed, on the ground that the said resolutions and appellate orders are wholly without jurisdiction arid otherwise Illegal. 2. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in all these petitions and the resolutions of the R. T. A. ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Rangappa Lachmiah and ors. Vs. the Range Forest Officer, Raichur an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant76; AIR1972Mys76
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the common question of law that arises for determination, is whether a person who had been running a saw mill before the Mysore Forest Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) came into force should take a licence under the rules in order to continue to run such saw mill.2. In W. Ps. Nos. 6061 to 6066 of 1969; 859 872 to 882; 1316 to 1318; 1346 to 1376; 2523 to 2527; and 4993 of 1970, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notices issued to them bv the Forest Authorities requiring them to obtain such licences. Those petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing the Forest Authorities not to compel them (the petitioners) to obtain such licences. In W. Ps. Nos. 1149 and 1241 of 1970, in addition to similar prayers, the petitioners have prayed for striking down Rules 163 and 164 of the Rules as being ultra vires of Section 50 of the Mysore Forest Act. 1963. (hereinafter referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!Madaiah Siddalingaiah Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant9; AIR1972Mys9; (1971)2MysLJ312
Venkataswami, J. 1. The petitioner is a owner of a land bearing Survey No. 10 in Bilidale village, Kanakapura Taluka. He has questioned the validity of two Notifications issued by the Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (referred to as the Act). Comes of these Notifications have been produced along with the Petition and marked as Exhibits C and H. Exhibit-C is the Notification issued under Section 4 bearing No. RD 11 AQB 67 dated 21-2-1967 published in the Mysore Gazette on 6th of July 1967. Exhibit-H is the Notification under Section 6. issued pursuant to the Notification Exhibit-C, bearing No. RD 589 AQB 69, dated 7th February 1970, and the date of publication in the Mysore Gazette is not indicated in the said Exhibit.2. Shri T. R. Subbanna. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, urged the following contentions:(i) That the Government, having withdrawn from acquisition as can be seen from Exhibit-F, which is a letter addressed by the Secr...
Tag this Judgment!N. Annaiyappa Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ii Additional Sub- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MysLJ599; [1971]28STC549(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a revision petition under section 13(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, against the order dated 21st November, 1970, by which the learned Second Magistrate, Bangalore, issued a warrant for the attachment of movables belonging to the petitioner for recovery of arrears of sales tax for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 amounting to Rs. 496.60. The said sum represents the tax determined under final assessment for the year 1967-68 and the tax provisionally fixed for the year 1968-69, besides penalty.2. It is stated from the Bar that even for the year 1968-69, the petitioner was finally assessed as per the assessment order dated 18th November, 1970. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that when once a final assessment was made, the demand made under the order of provisional assessment could not be enforced. Mr. S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, learned counsel for the State, does not dispute this proposition. He also brought to ou...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Rajagopal Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR814(KAR); [1972]86ITR814(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. These are two revision petitions preferred by a common assessee under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act', and they relate to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', grows areca nuts which is a commercial crop liable to be assessed under the Act. For the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 he filed returns under section 18(2) of the Act declaring the area of his land under arecanut cultivation as 4.27 acres in Bhimasamudra and Bettada Nagenahalli villages of Tumkur District. The said returns were accepted and the assessee was held not liable to tax by the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tumkur. 2. On April 22, 1966, the said Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued two notices in identical terms purporting to be notices under section 36 of the Act for re-opening the assessments. It is sufficient if we set out the terms of one notice which re...
Tag this Judgment!Hayath Beig Vs. Munivenkate Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant226; AIR1972Mys226
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Munsiff at Kolar made in Election Misc. No. 68 of 1068 dated 31-7-1969 by which the election of the petitioner as Chairman of the village panchayat of Chainasandra in Chintamni Taluk of Kolar District was set aside on the ground that Ms nomination paper was presented by himself and not by his proposer as required by Rule 5 of the Mysore Village Panchayat (Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman) Rules 1959, hereinafter called the 'Rules'.2. For the election held on 18-6-1968 for the office of the Chairman of the village panchayat the petitioner and the first respondent were the contesting candidates. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, the 1st respondent raised an objection to the nomination of the petitioner that his nomination paper was not presented by the proposer as required by Rule 5. The said objection was overruled by the 2nd respondent and the nomination was accepted. The petitioner having ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaprasad Vs. the Director, Atomic Minerals Division and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1971
Reported in: (1972)ILLJ310Kant
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. These two writ petitions are taken up for consideration and disposal together, because the question raised in them is the same and arises out of the same set of facts. 2. The petitioner in W.P. 3886 of 1968, the petitioner in W.P. 3887 of 1968 and the respondents 3 to 25 in W.P. 3886 of 1968, are all persons who entered the service of the Central Government as temporary employees and were governed by the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, since replaced by the rules of the same promulgated in the year 1965. 3. Under Rule 3, the services of a temporary employee may be declared as quasi-permanent by the appointing authority after a lapse of at least three years of continuous service. It is now clear law that quasi-permanency is acquired not merely by rendering continuous service of not less than three years, but that after such period the appointing authority should make an express declaration to that effect : vide Champaklal v. Union of India,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »