Karnataka Court September 1971 Judgments
G.B. Nesrikar and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant71; AIR1972Mys71; (1971)2MysLJ509
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioners in these three cases were Asstt. or Deputy Post Masters which are Class III posts under the Posts and Telegraphs Department. They have been asked to retire from service in exercise of the power under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Liberalised Pension Rules applicable to the Central Government servants. At the time the notices of retirement were served upon them, they had completed 30 years of service in the department but were below the age of 55.2. Various contentions have been raised to make out a case of infirmity or invalidity in the retirement notices impugned in these writ petitions and various answers have been suggested on behalf of the Department by their counsel Mr. Ramachandra Rao. After a discussion of all the said contentions, it appears to us that the matter may be disposed of on only one ground, viz., whether the rule under which section to retire the petitioners has been taken is or is not invalid as being violative of Article 14 o...
Tag this Judgment!Thattessara Subbaraya Vs. Chinne Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant213; AIR1972Mys213
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. These revision petitionsraise similar questions under the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, hereinafter called the Act. Therefore, arguments in both these petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In C. B. P. No. 557 of 1971, the landlord is the petitioner and he filed an application for recovery of rent for the year 1967-68 at 15 pallas of paddy, 14 maunds of areca and 500 bundles of hay or its value Rs. 2575/-from the respondent-tenant. The learned Munsiff, N. R. Pura who heard the said proceedings, by his order dated 31-3-1970 held that the petition filed for recovery of rent was barred by limitation. The learned Judge however fixed the fair rent at 12 1/2 quintals of paddy and 6 maunds & 6 seers of areca. The correctness of this order was challenged by the landlord before the court of the District Judge at Chickmagalur. The learned District Judge by his order dated 2nd December 1970 has dismissed the same. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Siddangouda Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ289
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The First Class Magistrate. Koppal by his order passed on an application presented by the petitioner under Section 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in Misc. Case No. 84 of 1970. requesting for release of the attached properties in his favour, rejected the request. This petition is directed against that order.2. The facts necessary for a decision are : that in C. C. No. 21 of 1968 on the file of the said First Class Magistrate, this petitioner was one of the accused. The charge was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As it was reported that the petitioner was absconding and the Magistrate felt satisfied, he issued a proclamation under Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proclamation was issued on 17-10-1968. It may be mentioned here itself that by the said proclamation the Magistrate called, upon the petitioner to appear in his court within 29-10-1968 to answer the complaint.3. As the petitioner did not appear in the said court, the Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Ramaiah and ors. Vs. D.R. Aswathanarayana Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1158
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Second City Magistrate. Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33/1966 dated 27-2-1971, on an application filed by the petitioner praying that action be taken under Section 188 I. P.C. The learned Magistrate has refused to take action as prayed for.2. The few facts necessary for a decision in this case are:On 8-2-1967. the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore passed an order under Section 145 (6) Criminal P.C. in regard to a bungalow bearing No. 1848. Sampige Road, Malleswaram. Bangalore City. That order was taken upto the High Court in Criminal Revision petition No. 166/ 1967 which was disposed of on 1-5-1967. It was ultimately declared that the petitioners in this petition were in possession of southern portion of the said house and that the remaining parties, including the present respondents were prohibited from interferring with the said possession of the present petitioners and that the northern port...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. GhousuddIn and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ808
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge Bidar against an order passed under Section 488 of the Criminal 'Procedure Code by the First Class Magistrate, Bidar in Criminal Case No. 81 of 1967.2. The few facts necessary for a decision in this case are : That respondent 2 wife filed an application against respondent-1 her husband under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from him. The husband appeared through an Advocate and filed objections. Ultimately the wife came to be examined and cross-examined. Her cross-examination was completed on 21-7-1970. The order sheet of the date 21-7-1970 reads as follows:Parties are present, Cross-examination of P.W. 1. and P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4's statement recorded, petitioner's evidence heard. Case adjourned for defence evidence call on 11-8-1970.On 11-8-1970, the counsel appearing on behalf of the husband reported no instructions, and the case was adjourned to 17-8-1970 for arguments. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Subrao Ramba Ravalu Kedari and ors. Vs. Kallappa Nana Kadapure and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant242; AIR1972Mys242
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question to be decided in this revision petition is whether in a suit for injunction falling under Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction can be different from the valuation for the purpose of payment of court-fee.2. The above revision petition has been referred to the Division Bench by Datar, J. since he felt that there was a conflict between two decisions of this court in C. R. P. No. 1534 of 1368 (Mys) and C. R. P. No. 1791 of 1969 (reported in AIR 1972 Mys 163).3. In the instant case, the petitioner filed a suit for the bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit land. The land in question was an agricultural land assessed to land revenue. He valued the suit in the court of the Civil Judge Belgaum, valuing the land for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 20,000/-and for purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!B.B. Biddappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Myso ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR630(KAR); [1972]85ITR630(Karn); (1971)2MysLJ588
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This matter arises under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The petitioner, B.B. Biddappa, and his two brothers, viz., B.B. Appaiah and B.B. Somayya, derived agricultural income from lands in Coorg District in the State of Mysore. For the assessment year 1964-65 the petitioner filed a return on behalf of himself and his two brothers giving his status as 'tenants-in-common'. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg (respondent No. 2), assessed the petitioner and his brothers treating them as 'tenants-in-common' by his order dated August 8, 1965. The name of the assessee as shown therein is 'Sri B.B. Biddappa and others' and the status of the assessee is 'tenants-in-common'. The operative portion of the said assessment order read thus : 'A common demand notice will be issued showing the income determined and the tax demanded from each of the members of the 'tenants-in-common' but demanding payment from Sri B.B. Biddappa as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ali Tahir and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1971
Reported in: (1972)ILLJ406Kant; (1971)2MysLJ396
ORDERPer A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 by two officers of the Public Works Department, allottees from the erstwhile State of Mysore to new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act, praying for the issue of appropriate writes for the quashing of the equation of posts made for purposes of integration falling within the category of Junior Engineers and for re-doing the same in accordance with law. 2. The final inter-State seniority list dated the 26th of December, 1968 incorporating the impugned equation sets out the same at the end as category II. In the said category are set out the several posts which are equated for purposes of integrating service personal coming from different integrating areas and setting their inter-State seniority. The posts listed as equated are the following : 'Supervisor, Mysore (Rs. 116-200), Sub-Engineer, Mysore (Rs. 150-200), Overseer, Mysore (Rs. 100-150), Graduate Overseer, Bombay (Rs. 140-270), Permanent and Temporar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›