Karnataka Court July 1971 Judgments
Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361
Venkataswami, J. 1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. 2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Bhandary Vs. Seetharama Punja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant344; AIR1972Mys344
ORDERDatar, J.1. Defendant in O. S. No. 93of 1969, pending in the Court of the Munsiff of Buntwal. S. K. is the petitioner in this revision petition. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of amount due under a document executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. A controversy arose as to whether the document was a promissory note or a bond as denned under the Stamp Act. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a promissory note and that of the defendant is that it is a bond. The trial Court on a consideration of the relevant circumstances held that the document was a promissory note and being duly stamped as such, ordered that it should be marked as exhibit. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition should not be entertained as the decision given by the Court below is only regarding the admissibility of a document i...
Tag this Judgment!Rang Rao Ram Rao Deshpande and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant98; AIR1972Mys98
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a common question of law as to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Mysore (Abolition of Cash Grants) Act, 1967. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises for determination. AH these petitioners were Setting cash grants called Rusum Deshpandyagiri from the former State of Hyderabad. They have claimed that the new State of Mysore should pay them cash grants from 30-7-1952 onwards.2. W. P. No. 1289 of 1967 was filed before the Act came into force. In that petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a mandamus directing the State Government to pay him the cash grant from 30-7-1952. In the remaining four petitions the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, has been challenged. In W. P. No. 2733 of 1968 and W. P. No. 126 of 1969, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar who determined the compensation payable to them under the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Madivalappa Channappa Chowdary Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ189
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The only point that requires consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of his property which was attached under Section 88 of Cr. P. C.2. The petitioner was wanted in a case of arson and looting of foodgrains along with many others. The police filed a charge-sheet after investigation against 39 persons including the petitioner for offences under Sections 147, 343. 428, 437, 461 and 396 of the IPC. showing the petitioner as absconding. Out of them 3 accused were convicted and others were acquitted. On appeal to the High Court those who had been convicted also were acquitted. Before the trial commenced a warrant was issued for his arrest and in spite of extension of time and efforts made he could not be traced. On 30-1-1966 a proclamation was issued under Section 87 (3) of Crl. P. C. calling upon him to appear on or before 2-3-1966. Thereafter the Magistrate being satisfied that the petitioner was absconding and concealing h...
Tag this Judgment!Chickarangappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ420
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 87 of the Mysore Police Act. 1963. hereinafter referred to as the Act. and sentenced to a fine of Rupees 50/- each by the Special First Class Magistrate. Madhugiri, in C. C. No. 21 of 1971.2-3. The material facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are these:On 6-1-1971. the Superintendent of Police Tumkur District (P. W. 1) received reliable information that gambling was going on near Madhugiri Town. He proceeded to Madhugiri with some Reserve Police. Special Branch Sub-Inspector of Police and Head Constable. He came near Harihareswara Temple near Madhugiri at 4.30 p. m. There he directed his men who had accompanied him to change their dress. Then he proceeded to Shandy Maidan. From the Shandy Maidan he observed that about 30 to 40 persons had gathered in a dry land belonging to Putta Kamanna. As he proceeded towards those persons, he observed that 20 to 25 persons were standing around the place and the pe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. H. Gundappa Honnappa Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ191
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur under Section 438 Criminal P- C. in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1970.2. A charge-sheet was filed against accused 1 to 5 who are respondents before this Court, by the Circle Inspector of Police. Koppa Circle in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narasimharajapur alleging that they had committed offences under Sections 302 323, 120-B (1), 201 read with Sections 34 and 203 I. P. C. In the course of the enquiry, the Assistant Public Prosecutor made an application before the learned Magistrate on 26-10-1970 under Section 337 Criminal P. C. praying that pardon may be tendered to accused-3 (respondent-3) and he may be allowed to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The said application was allowed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 12-11-1970 and permission was granted to treat accused-3 as an approver on 20-11-1970 and he has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as P. W. 1. Then char...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›