Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys66
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. In these several Writ Petitions by the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department impugning the validity of certain orders passed against them by an officer of the Department in disciplinary proceedings instituted against them, certain common points of law arise. Therefore, they have been heard together. The learned counsel on both sides, for the sake of convenient disposal of these cases, addressed us in the first instance on these general points of law and thereafter proceeded to deal with the facts and circumstances peculiar to individual cases. We propose to follow the same method in disposing of these cases.2. The common points fall under two categories : The first of them deals with the competency of the officer who made the orders and the second with the correctness or validity of the orders in the light of the rules and standing orders governing the procedure in respect of disciplinary action.3. The particular officer, whose competency is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant218; AIR1962Mys218
ORDER(1) These seven Writ Petitions arise out of certain land acquisition proceedings taken in respect of a certain extent of land comprised in Survey No. 2 of Raj Mahal Village, Kasba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, initiated under Notification No. LLH 281 IAQ 58 made by the Government of Mysore under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Mysore Land Amending Act of 1894, (Mysore Act VII of 1894), and published in the Mysore Gazette dated the 7th of May 1959. The final notification under section 6 of the act bearing No. RDH 4 LTB 59 dated the 14th of October 1959, was published in the Mysore Gazette dated the 15th of October 1959. The former notification opened with a statement that it appeared to the Government of Mysore that the land specified therein was needed for a public purpose to wit for Raj Mahal Vilas Lay-out. In the latter one, the Government declared that the property specified therein be the same a little more or less, was needed for a public purpose to wit for Raj Mahal Lay-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Mys198; 1961CriLJ509
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from a case in which the petitioners are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 163 and 420, I. P. C. The case is being tried by a Special. Judge under Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952; under Section 8 cf that Act, the procedure prescribed being that for the trial of warrant cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage reached in the, case is that charges have been framed against the accused and the prosecution is examining its witnesses.The accused have not yet entered on their defence. The petitioners (Accused) applied to the Court to summon a witness for the production of certain documents. The learned Judge rejected the application taking the view that the accused were not entitled to make the application until they had entered on their defence.2. According to the learned Judge Section 251-A, which now regulates the procedure for warrant cases, accords the accused such a right only when that stage is reached an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant44; AIR1962Mys44
(1) Before proceeding to deal with the merits of this Second Appeal , it will be necessary to dispose of an application which has been filed by the appellant . This application has been marked I.A. No. 11 and purports to be under S. 153, C.P.C. reads with Order 1 Rule 10 and S. 151, C.P.C. The fact, which have given occasion to this application are as follows: The present appellant was the defendant in the suit before the trial Court. That was a suit which the plaintiff had brought for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff therein claimed that he had become entitled to the suit schedule property by value of Exhibit 27 which was a sale deed dated 17.4.1946 executed by the defendant. That suit having been dressed by the trial Court, the defendant had preferred an appeal which came up for beating before the second Extra Assistance Judge, Belgaum . That appeal was heard by that learned judge on 4.4.1957 and judgment was pronounced on the same day, dismissing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963]47ITR55(KAR); [1963]47ITR55(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This writ petition is directed against proceedings commenced under the provisions of section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the recovery from the petitioner of a sum of money stated to be due by way of income-tax from the estate of one Bademiya who was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52. 2. The assessment proceedings commenced during the lifetime of Bademiya, who, however, died before the assessment order was made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on March 29, 1956. Bademiya, it is not disputed, was doing his business under the name and style of Nizamia Oil Mills and he was assessed as an individual. 3. Bademiya left behind him two sons and a daughter. The assessment order made in respect of his income was appealed against by only one of his two sons who was able to obtain some little relief from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a little more from the Income-tax Tribunal. 4. On March 29, 1956, on the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant117; AIR1962Mys117; [1962(4)FLR144]; ILR1962KAR22
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) These three cases relate to a reference made under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the Government of the State of Mysore, in respect of the Industrial disputes stated therein.(2) These references which were made originally to another Tribunal stood transferred at one stage to a Tribunal presided over by one Mr. D.H. Chandrasekhariah, and which was constituted under the provisions of S. 7-A of the Act, on July 5, 1957. The notification by which that Tribunal was constituted reads:'In exercises of the powers conferred by S, 7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government of Mysore here by constitutes an Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and appoints Shri. D.H. Chandrasekhariah, B.A. LL.B., as the presiding officer of the said Tribunal.'(3) It will be seen from this notification that the Government of Mysore which is appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys292
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. For the purpose of making appointments to the posts of Munsiffs in the judicial Service of the State of Mysore, the State Public Service Commission, which will be referred to as the Commission, conducted a competitive examination which commenced on December 20, 1960, and continued till March 10, 1951. There were 229 candidates but it was announced by the Commission by a notification which it made on May 22, 1961, that only fifty two had succeeded. Their names were published in the order of merit. The petitioners who took the examination but did not succeed challenge the notification as one made without lawful authority.2. The examination was conducted under Rules made for that purpose by the Governor of the State under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Those rules which were intituled the Mysore Munsiffs Recruitment Rules, 1958, will be referred to as the Rules. Rule 3 of those Rules directed the appointments to the cadre of Munsiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963]49ITR977(KAR); [1963]49ITR977(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. For the assessment year 1952-53, the Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, made an assessment on March 26, 1957, in respect of the income of a Hindu undivided family consisting of the petitioner in W.P. No. 322 of 1959 and his son who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 323 of 1959. The tax payable by the family was determined as Rs. 54,067-5-0. 2. But, in the meanwhile, according to the petitioners, on March 28, 1956, there was a partition of a part of the family assets, viz., the movables. On the basis of that incomplete partition, an application had been made by the petitioners for a record of that partition under section 25A(1) of the Income-tax Act. Not unnaturally, on the ground that the partition was an incomplete partition, the Income-tax Officer declined to make that record and proceeded to make the assessment for the year 1952-53 as if the family was still undivided. 3. After the assessment was made in that way, on March 29, 1957, according to the petitioners, there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant192; AIR1962Mys192
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner who is a chemist and druggist carrying on business in the sales or medicinal and toilet preparation among others questions the validity of a notification made by the State Government on April 8, 1958 under Ss. 17, 18 and 24 of the Mysore Excise Act (Mysore Act V of 1901) by which it prescribed among other matters the license fee payable by chemists and druggists and the license fee for the sale of spirituous preparations. Those two entries in the notification read:__________________________________________________________________________________'SL. Rate of levy from 1stated JulyNo. Item Strength 1958__________________________________________________________________________________ * * * Rs. Np.15 License to Chemist Per year fee 20.00& Druggists.* * * *23 License fee for sale of Per annum 20.00spirituous Preparations.* * * *'__________________________________________________________________________________The preamble to this notification reads:'In ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant72; AIR1962Mys72; ILR1962KAR225
Hegde, J. (1) The questions of law referred for the decision of the Full Bench are:'1. Whether, by virtue of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the interest of the first defendant in the share taken by him as the sole member of a nissanthathi kavaru, became capable of being disposed of by will?and 2. Whether Sub-section (3), (4) and (5) of section 36 of the Aliyasanthana Act are inconsistent with the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, do they, by the operation of Sub-section (1) (b) of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, cease to apply?' (2) The material facts are not in dispute and they are fully set out in the order of reference. As per the preliminary decree dated 26.8.1952, the deceased first defendant had been allotted a 75/360th share in the family properties. He died on 25.7.1956. he had left behind him a will executed on 19.6.1956 bequeathing the properties allotted to his share...
Tag this Judgment!