Karnataka Court January 1977 Judgments
T.P. Thomas Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1977
Reported in: ILR1977KAR1114; 1977(1)KarLJ325; (1978)ILLJ191Kant
ORDER1. In the above writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Communication No. 85860/Person RD-21 (c) LRDE/5702/D (R & D) dt. 24-6-1976 at Ext. 'E' by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent denying the petitioner his seniority by the omission to count his 17 years of combatant service.2. Briefly facts are : The petitioner joined service in the India Army on November 17, 1947 and was discharged from Army Service on the 6th October 1964 on which date he was holding the post of 'Nayak'. Thereafter he was appointed as an Electrician (Group B Tradesman) on July 7, 1965 in the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment, Bangalore. Later on he was promoted as Instrument Mechanic Group A Tradesman on 11th February 1967. In December, 1970, he was permitted to appear for the Trade Test for earning eligibility for appointment to the post of Supervisor Group 2/Precision Mechanic. The case of the petitioner is that he secured more...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Bhimappa Kulgod and ors. Vs. the Union of India, New Delhi and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant100; ILR1977KAR485; 1977(1)KarLJ187
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These Writ Appeals are against the common order made by learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos. 1102, 1115 of 1972 and W. P. Nos. 4653 and 5606 of 1974. The validity of the notification dated 9th November 1966 issued by the Textile Commissioner was challenged in those writ petitions. The learned Judge has upheld the validity of that notification and dismissed the writ petitions.2. For a proper appreciation of the contentions raised in these appeals, it is necessary-to set out the history of the legislation, which empowered the Textile Commissioner to issue the impugned notification. Under the Defense of India Act, 1939, the rules were framed to meet the emergency, which had arisen as a result of the Second World War. Rule 81 (2) (b) of the Rules authorised the Central Government, inter alia, so far as appears to it necessary or expedient for securing the defense of British India or the efficient prosecution of War or maintaining supplies and services essential to the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. M.G. Chowde Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant96; ILR1977KAR629; 1977(1)KarLJ183
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge allowing Writ Petition No. 244 of 1974 and directing the State Government to dispose of the case with liberty to call for the materials, if necessary, from the Subordinate Officers.2. Briefly stated the facts are: Chowde Gowda-Respondent 1 is a political sufferer The political sufferers are given some concessions in the matter of granting land by the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. Sometime in the year 1964-65, respondent 1 applied for grant of land in Survey No. 296 in Maralagala village in Srirangapatna Taluk, His application, was processed and an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas was granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District. Respondent 1 was not satisfied with the land granted to him. He wanted about 10 acres of land. So, he approached the State Government with his grievance. The Government by order in D. M. No. RDI LYD 65 dated 9-10-1965, directed to consider t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalingappa Shivalingappa Meti Vs. Sanganabasappa Sangappa Paraddi an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ111
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, in a case Under Section 145 a the Cr.PC The petitioner constituted party-I, while the respondent No. 1 constituted Party-Il and it was stated 'hat there was a dispute as to possession between them in respect of Survey Numbers 323/2, 324/1 and 325/1 of Ravadi village in Ron Taluk. The police report was submitted to the Magistrate on 6-3-1975 which referred to that dispute and there was an allegation that the parties were likely to commit breach of the peace. Accordingly, the J earned Magistrate passed the preliminary order and directed both the parties to adduce evidence by affidavits. Subsequently, that evidence was considered and party-II was held to be entitled to possession. Party-I felt aggrieved of that order and preferred the present revision.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the evidence by affidavits could not be adduced in vi...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank, No. 17 North Beach Road, Madras Vs. L. Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant107; ILR1977KAR407; 1977(1)KarLJ115
1. The short question, which is common to these five appeals, that arises for determination is as to whether the Court at Bangalore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the five suits out of which the aforesaid appeals have arisen.2. It is unnecessary to detail all the facts, as it would suffice to take notice only of such facts as will directly bear upon the question aforesaid. These facts which are not in dispute, can be stated thus:Indian Bank with its Head Office at Madras, the appellant in all the aforesaid five appeals, was the plaintiff in all the suits. It had sanctioned a loan of Rupees 60,000/- to defendant No. 1, a Repatriate from Burma, his application for such loan, having been sponsored by defendant No. 5 - the Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Ltd., Madras, of which defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were members. Each defendant is joined as one of the defendants to all the separate 5 suits filed against them. The plaintiff-Bank had forwarded the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore Vs. T.M. Nanaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1977
Reported in: [1977]108ITR888(KAR); [1977]108ITR888(Karn); 1977(1)KarLJ132
Tewatia, J.1. This reference raises a short, but important, question for consideration, whether the extinguishment of a debt or any other right amounts to a disposition in terms of Explanation 2 to sub-section (15) of section 2 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), only if such extinguishment is brought about or suffered by the deceased consciously. 2. The determination of the question posed has to be approached in the light of facts which are not in dispute and can be stated thus : One Sri T. M.Madappa died on 5th November, 1969. Prior to his death, he had purchased an estate in the names of his sons for a sum of Rs. 1,62,500. He treated Rs. 62,500 as a gift to his sons and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as a loan to them under a pronote dated 15th October, 1965. The gift-tax assessment regarding the amount of Rs. 62,500 which was taken on hand by the taxing authorities in the year 1966 was completed in March, 1969. The authorities acting on the af...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›