Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ591Kant
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned District Magistrate of South Kanara in S.T.C. No. 4 of 1959 on his file, for three offences under the Factories Act (which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act'). Firstly he was convicted under Section 92 read with Section 6 and Rule 5(3) of the rules framed under the 'Act' (hereinafter called the 'rules') for having carried on the manufacturing process in a 'Factory' without, obtaining a licence under the 'Act,' and the 'Rules' from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Mangalore; secondly under Section 92 read with Section 112 and Rule 104 for not maintaining a register of accidents and dangerous occurrences in the prescribed form--Form 26); and lastly under Section 92 read with Section 112 and Rule 105 for having failed to maintain a bound inspection book as prescribed by Forms 7, 28 and 29. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge of South Kanara confirmed the convictions, though he modified the sentences of fine impose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant313; AIR1960Mys313
ORDER(1) Vires of Rule 4(a) of the Rules framed under Sec 25 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951(Mysore Act No. XXX of 1951)(which shall be hereinafter called the ''Act') comes up consideration in this revision petition.(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner is the landlord in respect of House No. 3, Malton Road, Civil Station, Bangalore; the said premises fell vacant sometime in January 1960; the petitioner reported that vacancy to the Rent controller (who shall be hereinafter called 'controller') on 16-1-1960; the Controller intimated that vacancy to the deputy Commissioner at Bangalore who wrote back to the Controller asking him to allot that house to respondent 1(who shall be hereinafter referred to as respondent) who belongs to the Indian Police Service and at present serving in the Department of Efficiency Audit, Bangalore; in compliance with this intimation, the controller allotted the premises in question to the respondent; the allotment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant106; AIR1961Mys106
1. This appeal under the provisions of Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, which will hereafter he referred to as the Act, is presented by a returned candidate whose election to the House of the People was declared void by an Election Tribunal. 2. The notification of the President under Section 14 of the Act, calling upon the Parliamentaryconstituencies to elect members to the House or the People was promulgated on January 19, 1957. 3. The Parliamentary constituency with which we are concerned in this appeal was known as the Koppal Parliamentary constituency, in the district of Raichur. The area of that constituency was that which consisted of eight Assembly Constituencies. Three of those constituencies were in the district of Bellary and they were Shirguppa, Hospet and Hedagali. The five constituencies which were in the district of Raichur were Kushtagi, Sindhanoor, Gangavati, Koppal and Yelburga. 4. The election commenced on February 25, 1957, and continued till Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant257; AIR1961Mys257
Narayana Pai, J.1. The Nyaya Panchayat of Ankalgi village, Gokak Taluk, Balgaum District, constituted under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act of 1933, convicted the respondent Gurupadappa Appayyappa Kardesai of the offence of having contravened one of the bye-laws made under the Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 11/- on him in respect of it. He appealed to the Sessions Court, Bdgaum, in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1957 on its file. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent. Against that order of acquittal, the State has filed tills appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. On behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of this appeal. The contention on his behalf is that his appeal to the Sessions Court, the order in which is attacked in the appeal now before us, was presented to the Sessions Court under the provisions of Section 78 of the Bombay Act and that an order in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant53; AIR1962Mys53
Hedge, J.(1) These appeals are companion appeals. They can be beat dealt with in one judgment. Rs.. A. No. (B) 56/56 arises out of Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 1949 on the file of the learned civil judge (Senior Division)at Bijapur. B.A. No. (B) 57/58 arises out of the decision in special Civil suit No. 5 of 1949 on the file of the same Judge. They had been tried together and disposed of in one judgment by the Court below.(2) The first plaintiff is S. C. S.. No 5/49 and the plaintiff in S.C. S. No. 38/49 claim to have been adopted to the family of the Nadgoudas of Baldion- a rich family of Watandars. In the course of this judgment 1 shall refer to the parties its arrayed in SCS No. 5/49. The first plaintiff in that suit (2nd plaintiff has died prodding trial) is the appellant in R.A. No. The fourth defendant in that suit (who is the plaintiff in SCS No. 38/49) is the appellant in R.A. No. (B) 56/56. Hereinafter reference to the 'plaintiff' means the first plaintiff in SCS Nos. 5/49. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant18; AIR1962Mys18
Hegde, J.(1) The first defendant in Original Suit Number 89/1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary, is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of the first defendant. The plaintiff is said to be a person of unsound mind and hence, the suit was instituted by his wife as his next friend.(2) In the Court below, the suit was resisted mainly on two grounds: They are : (1) the plaintiff is not a person of unsound mind and as such the suit as instituted is not maintainable and (2) that all the properties of the first defendant and hence, the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in them. The Court below rejected both these contention and decreed the suit in respect of all items of property claimed excepting item No. 8. As regards costs, it directed that the same shall come out of the estate. The first defendant has appealed against that decision while the plaintiff has come up with a Memorandum of Cross-Objections disputing the correct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1961KAR84; (1961)ILLJ479Kant
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, shortly stated, arises as follows. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as an upper division clerk. His first appointment was as junior assistant, Political Department. On 18 September 1943 he was transferred on deputation of the Rationing Department, which was a temporary department. In that department he rose up to the position of a Rationing Officer and was drawing a sum of Rs. 460. On 1 March, 1954 the Rationing Department which, as I said, was a temporary department, ceased to exist and the petitioner was thereupon reverted to his parent department. Instead of being reposted to the Political Department he was first posted to the Labour Department and then to the Public Works Department. The pay which was fixed on such reversion was Rs. 120. The petitioner's case is that when he went on deputation on 18 September, 1943 he was confirmed in the post of junior assistant on a pay of Rs. 120 in the gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant220; AIR1961Mys220
ORDER1. These fifty Writ petitions have been heard together because they raise common questions in regard to the principles on which and the manner in which admissions were made into Professional and Technical Colleges in the State for the academic year 1980-61. The petitioners complain that both the principles and the Procedure followed infringed or abridge their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution, and claim that they would otherwise have secured admission. 2. Twenty out of these petitions, viz., W. P. Nos 782, 788, 794, 805, 806, 844, 845, 867, 870, 880, 881, 886, 961, 964, 983, 1018, 1039, 1041, 1077 and 1149 of 1960, relate to Medical Colleges and the remaining thirty, viz., 818, 819, 820, 841, 883, 910, 951, 954, 955, 962, 965, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1040, 1042, 1058, 1069, 1101, 1105, 1113, 1173 and 1295 of 1960 relate to Engineering Colleges in the State. 3. The State Government maintains three Medical Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant
Narayana Pal, J. (1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant197; AIR1961Mys197
ORDER1. The petitioner was the defendant in the court below, and, at one stage, he was held to he not an agriculturist, as defined by the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act- It was the plaintiff who alleged that he was an agriculturist, and this allegation he made, for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the larger period of limitation, prescribed by Section 24 of the Act.From that finding of the Court below, the plaintiff presented a revision petition to this Court, and this Court set aside the finding of the Court below and remanded the matter to it for disposal according to law, and for the determination of the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, by the application of the amended definition, of an agriculturist contained in the Act, after its amendment by Mysore Act No. XIII of 1953. The direction given by this Court in that revision petition reads:'The finding is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for disposal according to law.'M...
Tag this Judgment!