Karnataka Court March 1972 Judgments
Y.V. Shanthamurthy (Accused No. 1) and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ355
ORDERK. Bhimiah, J.1. Criminal revision petitions Nos. 85, 86 and 87 of 1972 arise from the order issuing process against the petitioners who are arrayed as the accused in C.C. Nos. 102, 130 and 207 of 1972 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. First Court. Dharwar.2. The first petitioner is the printer and publisher and the second petitioner is the editor of a Weekly Newspaper called 'Janapragathi' printed and published at 8th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore 3. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. N.H. Naik, learned advocate for the petitioners that the summons issued by the J.M.F.C. First Court Dharwar and served on them is without the name of the complainant, the offence alleged, and also which did not accompany with a copy of the complaint as required under Rule 7 of the Mysore Criminal Rules of Practice of 1968 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Rules of Practice) is improper and illegal. His second contention is that the petitioners wh...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ramaiah Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant17; AIR1973Mys17; ILR1984KAR452; (1972)2MysLJ119
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition and it arises in this way.The petitioner M. S. Ramiah (briefly 'the contractor'), entered into a contract with the State Government for the construction of a masonry dam at Talakalale which was a part of Sharavathy Valley Project. By Clause 51 of the said contract it was provided that if there was a dispute in regard to 'non-technical matters' relating to the construction, either party may resort to arbitration by giving a notice in writing of the existence of the dispute. On such a notice being given, the matter shall be referred to an arbitration of two persons one to be nominated by the Government and the other by the contractor. Such reference should be deemed to be a submission to an arbitration within the meaning of the Indian Arbitration Act. 1940, or any statutory modification thereof. The award of the arbitrators be final and binding on both the parties.2. In the year 1960, the contractor raised certain disputes...
Tag this Judgment!Pleadings D' Cunha Vs. Manakke Hengaue
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant269; AIR1972Mys269; (1972)2MysLJ290
H.B. Datar, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant in the present second appeal. Plaintiff filed O. S. No. 518/64 in the court of the Additional Munsiff. Mangalore S. K. The learned trial Judge by his judgment dated 31-8-1967 decreed the plaintiff's suit. 2. The correctness of this decision was challenged before the court of the Civil Judge at Mangalore in R. A No. 17/1967. The learned appellate judge who heard the appeal, by his judgment dated 20-3-1969 has allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. It is the correctness of this judgment and decree of the learned appellate judge that is challenged in this second appeal. 4. For the purpose of proper consideration of the questions involved in this second appeal, it would be necessary to set out briefly the facts alleged. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a monthly tenant under him in respect of the house and the compound, described in 'A' schedule annexed to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!A. Shivananda Survana Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant21; AIR1973Mys21
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is an employee of the City Municipal Council of Mangalore as a Town Planning and Building Inspector, impugns an order made by the Divisional Commissioner of Mysore, transferring him from Mangalore to Udipi to serve the Municipal Council of Udipi.2. The transfer has been made by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of the power of the State Government under Section 320 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, delegated to him by the State Government under a notification bearing No. S. O. 3818 dated 17th January. 1966. Either the validity of the section or the legality of the delegation is not questioned by the petitioner.3. The petitioner's contention is that the power under Section 320 of the Act should not he read as an absolute power but that the same should be harmonised, as it is put in the argument with the rule-making power under Section 323 of the Act. The point of the argument is that service conditions, promotional opportunities, pay scales allowances, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswamy and ors. Vs. Smt. Nagamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant178; AIR1973Mys178; (1972)2MysLJ256
Venkataramiah, J.1. The respondents in M. C. No. 14 of 1968 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, are the appellants in this case. The said case was filed by the respondent in this appeal, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights and it ended in a decree against the first appellant. Hence this appeal.2. The first appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 28-6-1964 at Mysore. Appellants 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the 1st appellant. The appellants ere residents of Bangalore City. The father of the respondent is a resident of a village in Mysore District. After the marriage, the respondent came to the house of the appellants and was residing with them. On the night of 22nd February, 1965 she gave birth to a child at Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore. After staving in the hospital for a period of 12 days, she returned to the residence of the appellants and therea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›