Karnataka Court August 1971 Judgments
B.C.K. Murthy and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant88; AIR1972Mys88
Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. All these three cases raise question about the entitlement of the petitioners to special scales of pay given to members of the tutorial staff of Technical Institutions on the recommendation of the All India Council of Technical Education. These higher scales intended for improving the calibre of teaching staff were first paid out of the funds placed at the disposal of the various State Governments by the Central Government. The scheme was originally intended to last for a period of five years with the expectation that thereafter the State Government might continue them out of State funds. It would appear that in this State though the initial period of five years has lapsed the State Government is continuing the benefit of the higher scales for those to whom they were extended when the scheme was first introduced. 2. The petitioner In W. P. 5320/ 69 was at the time the scheme was initiated working as Principal of the Government Polytechnic at Bellary having been pr...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, Hassan Vs. Dharmachand Multanml
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR70(KAR); [1972]86ITR70(Karn)
C. Honniah, J.1. These revision petition are directed against the orders passed in C. Co. Nos. 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625 and 1626 of 1969 by the Munsiff and First Class Magistate, Chickmagalur. The main question to be decided in these revision petitions is whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the prayer to recall P.W. 1 to the alleged sanction to prosecute the petitioner for offenses under section 276C of the Income-tax Act of 1961. 2. In the complaint, the Income-tax Officer mentioned that he had obtained the authorization to prosecute the respondent herewith from the competent authority and stated therein that the authorisation had been filed along with the complaint. 3. The Income-tax Officer adduced evidence to show that the respondent had filed no returns for certain years. The accused-respondent adduced evidence to show that he could not file the returns as he was sick and bedridden and in his behalf he has examined two doctors and himself. The case on both the sides was...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Nayak Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant114; AIR1972Mys114; (1971)2MysLJ594
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for an order of certiorari to quash the Order dated 3-3-19C9 made by the Government of India. Ministry of Petroleum. Chemical and Mines and Metals in its revisional jurisdiction under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the petition are these: By a notification dated 12-1-1967, the Government oi Mysore, invited applications for the grant of a licence for a mining lease in respect of 810 acres of land, out of forest survey No. 2 of Atli village, in Supa Taluka of North Kanara District. The petitioner and respondent 3 among others submitted their applications on the same date, for the grant of a license. After considering the cases of the applicants, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957, and after obtaining the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bagalkot Udyog Ltd., Bombay Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), New Delhi an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant363; AIR1971Mys363
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of. cement at Bagalkot. For the purpose of its factory, it had obtained a mining lease over certain areas in the District of Bijapur to win lime-stone under a mining lease deed dated 27-10-1955 granted by the Government of Bombay, Under the lease the petitioner had to pay a certain sum of money by way of royalty over the quantity of lime-stone won by it. The said rate of royalty was varied from time to time by the Government of India in exercise of its powers under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One such variation was made by a notification dated 29-6-1968 bearing No. GSR 1263, which is marked as Exhibit 'B' in the case. Under that notification the royalty payable on limestone was notified as follows:--'8. Limestone: (a) Superior grade with One rupee45% or more of Ca. O andtwenty-fivepaise pertonne.(b) Inferior grade w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madhukar Dasarath Mendekar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ978
C. Honniah, J.1. The 8 accused persons, who are appellants in these two appeals, were charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of obtaining illegal gratification from various Persons, of them except A-1 the other accused persons received illegal gratification to induce A-l. a public servant to recruit candidates to the Air Force and in pursuance of that conspiracy obtained illegal gratification from some persons and pooled all the amounts and paid Part of that amount to A-l and the remaining amount was utilised by them and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 162 of the Indian Penal Code. A-l was further charged with having accepted illegal gratification, punishable under Section 5 (1) (a) and (d) read with Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. in the court of the Special Judge. Bangalore Division, Bangalore in C. C. No. JO of 1966 on his file.2. By his judgment dated 28-10-1970. the Special Judge acquitted A-6 Panick...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Subbanna and ors. Vs. Nanjamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant190; AIR1972Mys190
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been referred to a Bench of Malimath. J. as a substantial question of law on which there is no decision of this court is involved in the case. 2. The plaintiff was the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 14 of 1951-52 on the file of the court of the Second Munsiff. Mysore and became purchaser of the suit schedule lands which were sold in execution of that decree- The sale was confirmed on 14-2-1959 and the sale certificate was issued on 13-4-1961; but he did not apply for delivery of the property purchased under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He instituted No. 68 of 1963 in the same court on 23-2-1963 for partition and possession of items Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and for possession if items Nos. 5 and 6 and for mesne profits from date of suit till delivery of possession. 3. Defendants 3. 4. 7 and 8 alone contested the suit. Their contention, inter alia, was that the suit is barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkagangamma Vs. Chunchanakuppa Rudriah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant222; AIR1972Mys222; (1972)1MysLJ376
D. Noronha, J.1. These two are plaintiff's Second Appeals. She filed Original Suits Nos. 535 and 536 of 1960 in the Court of the Second Munsiff. Bangalore on 26-10-1960. In O. S. No. 535 of 1960 she prayed for a decree declaring that she is entitled to the suit land. In O. S. No. 536 of 1960 she prayed for a decree that she is entitled to the suit house and to direct the first defendant to deliver possession and also to direct an enquiry to be made regarding the menses profits.2. Venkataramanachari, who died on 15-3-1942, had as his first wife Thimmakka and a second wife by the same name. The first wife's son was Hanumanthachari and his son is Sanjeevachari, who is the third defendant in O. S. No. 535 of 1960 and the second defendant in O. S. No. 536 of I960. Venkataramachari by his second wife had two sons and a daughter. The sons were Venkatachari and Appavyachari. The daughter is Naniamma, who is the second defendant in O. S. No. 535 of 1960 and the first defendant in O. S. No. 536 ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sreenivasa Rao and anr. Vs. K.M. Narasimhiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant90; AIR1972Mys90
ORDERM. Sadanandaswamy, J. 1. Civil Revision Petition No. 472/71 arises out of the case in H. R. C. 169/66 disposed of by the first Munsiff. Bangalore. Civil Revision Petition No. 546/71 arises out of the case in H. R. C. 172/66. These revision petitions are filed under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. In both the cases, the tenants are the petitioners. In C. R. P. 472/71, the petitioner was a tenant of shop No. 92. Ealepet. Bangalore City, In C. R. P. 546/71, the petitioner was a tenant of an office room which was part of the first floor of the building bearing Municipal No. 89, situated in Balepet, Bangalore City, as described in the schedule to the petition. The landlord was in occupation ol a portion of the premises using the same for his residential purposes. The other portions of the building were lei out to eight tenants including the present petitioners, There were four shops in the ground floor and four rooms in the first floor. The landlord is the first respon...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Shivalinga Minache Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bijapu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR150(KAR); [1973]87ITR150(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 18(4) Requiring him to submit his return of income for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68; but the petitioner did not file any return. Thereafter, the respondent issued a proposition notice under section 19(4) of the Act proposing to assess the petitioner on an income of Rs. 18,825 for the assessment year 1967-68. In the said notice the basis of computation of income is stated. Once of the commercial crops raised by the petitioner is groundnuts. According to the said notice, the area under cultivations was three acres and the yield per acre was five quintals. The petitioner appeared it response to the said notice and produced some bills for sale of sugar-cane Overruling the objections of the petitioner to the proposed assessment the respondent made an order of assessment determini...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Govindaswamy Vs. N. Nanjappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ459Kant; (1972)1MysLJ274
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, when the relationship existing between the parties disputed, the payment of wages authority has jurisdiction to go into that question. It arises in this way : The respondent in this revision petition field C. Mis. 14 of 1969 under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 385 together with compensation of Rs. 100 from the petitioner in this revision petition. His case was that he was an employee under the petitioner, that he was being paid daily wages at Rs. 7 per day, that the petitioner-employer had failed to pay his wages from January 1, 1968 upto July, 1968 and in spite of his efforts that amount was not paid; so the proceedings were initiated before the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, claiming the said relief. 2. The petitioner in this revision petition denied that the res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »