Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant146; AIR1962Mys146; ILR1961KAR1027
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The petitioner was on November 1, 1942, a Junior Assistant in the Political and Services Department, in the state of Bombay. On September 17, 1943, he was sent on deputation, to the Department of Civil Supplies. By an order made by the Controller of Civil Supplies on September 23, 1943, he was appointed with effect from September 18, 1943 a senior Assistant. In that Department, to which he was deputed, the petitioner rose to the position of a Rational Officer. On March 1, 1954, when the Department of Civil Supplies was abolished, he reverted to the Department of Public Works. When he so reverted, he was drawing in the Department of ?Civil Supplies a pay of Rs. 460/- in the grade 350-30-650. (2) But, on his reversion to the Department of Public Works, the petitioner was appointed to the post of a Junior Assistant in a pay of Rs. 120/-. (3) On the representations made by the petitioner against the fixation of his rank and pay in that way, to final decision was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant234; AIR1960Mys234; ILR1959KAR612
(1) The suit out of which this appeal arises was for possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed under a gift from one Maritammappa. Defendant No. 2 who alone contested this suit is the brother's wife of the said Maritammappa and who is in possession of the suit property. In her written statement she inter alia stated as follows :'It is true that the suit land belonged to one Maritammappa Fakirappa Chilapur. The said person has not written and registered the gift deed on Shaka 1867 Parthivanam Samvatsara Aswin Bahul 14. And he never gave the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. All these are denied by the defendant.'The further defence raised by the said defendant was that the document was obtained from the said Maritammappa by one Mudiawa, who was in his keeping, by using undue influence. The two main issues in the case were : (1) Does the plaintiff prove that Maritammappa has gifted suit property to plaintiff as alleged? And (2) Do defendants prove that the gift d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant129; AIR1959Mys129; ILR1958KAR677; (1958)36MysLJ898
M. Ahmed Ali Khan J. 1. This is an appeal filed by defendant I against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Belgaum, dated 31st December 1951 in O. S. No. 47 of 1950 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit which was for declaration that the decisions given by the Revenue Courts in respect of the suit lands were ultra vires, without jurisdiction void and illegal and that the defendants have no right to increase the rent or to seize possession of the suit lands granted hy the ancestors nf defendant 1 to the ancestors of plaintiffs, and also for the recovery of the amount spent over improving the lands, etc., and for mesne profits. 2. The subject matter of this litigation relates to Survey Nos. 162 and 163 situated at Nasalapur in Raibagh Mahal of former Kolhapur State. The old Survey Number of S. Nos. 162 and 163 was 143. The old S. No. 143 belongs to the family of defendant 1. These suit lands are Beshgat Watan Lands. The plaintiffs' case was that the grandfather of defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant53; AIR1958Mys53
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The plaintiff was the owner of a Studebaker Champion Motor Car. On June 24, 1949 he signed a proposal (Ex. I) for insuring this motor carwith the defendant, (hereinafter called the company) against loss or damage to it and third party liability arising from its use. On that proposal, a policy (Ex. II dated July 26, 1949 was issued by the Company insuring the car for one year, so far as material to this case, against any damage occasioned by accidental external means.The policy contained a recital that the proposal and declaration as stated in the schedule to that policy shall be the basis of the contract between the parties and shall be deemed to be incorporated in it. The policy was made subject to the conditions contained in it or endorsed thereon. One of those conditions provided that the due observance and fulfilment of such conditions and the endorsements and the truth of the statements and answers in the proposal shall be conditions precedent to the liability ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant45; AIR1957Mys45; (1957)35MysLJ89
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. This is a batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the levy of sales tax on monies realised for execution of certain contracts called 'works contract' has been challenged. The petitioners are charged with liability for payment of the tax not on the total amount received by them but on the value of goods supplied by them for fulfilment of contracts entered into with others, The value has been fixed and the tax assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder. The objections raised and arguments advanced being the same in all the petitions these may be conveniently disposed of by a single order.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the articles used by them for carrying out the works undertaken by them are treated as goods sold by them and that the value of these is determined not by the actual cost paid for but by the application of a formula. It is true that consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1956KAR286; [1957]8STC329(Kar)
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. This is a batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the levy of sales tax on moneys realised for execution of certain contracts called 'works contract' has been challenged. The petitioners are charged with liability for payment of the tax not on the total amount received by them but on the value of goods supplied by them for fulfilment of contracts entered into with others. The value has been fixed and the tax assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder. The objections raised and arguments advanced being the same in all the petitions these may be conveniently disposed of by a single order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the articles used by them for carrying out the works undertaken by them are treated as goods sold by them and that the value of these is determined not by the actual cost paid for but by the application of a formula. It is true that consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1957CriLJ455
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. In this application filed under Section 501-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, legality of the disposal of a petition previously filed under the same section by my learned predecessor is challenged on the ground, that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it sitting alone. The point raised is novel, even as the circumstances relating to it are unusual. The order is attacked by the learned Advocate-General as being one passed in exercise of power not vested by law in a Judge acting singly.2. The genesis of the case is that on a charge sheet presented by the Police certain persons were prosecuted for alleged commission of offences in Mysore. Some of the Accused invoked the interference of this Court by means of petitions filed under Sections 439 and 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings instituted against them before the Magistrate.The petitions were registered as Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 80 and 103 of 1954 and dealt with for some t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant81; AIR1955Mys81
Venkataramaiya, J.1. Two notifications dated 20th and 30th March1954 respectively and a Circular dated 11-5-1954issued by the Director of Public Instruction inMysore are attacked in this petition filed underArt. 226 of the Constitution of India as being unwarranted and unconstitutional. The notificationsprescribed the text books and copy books to be usedin all the Primary and Middle Schools of theState during the year 1954-55. Objection is takento the prescribing not of text books i.e., books tobe read and taught but of the Kannada CopyBooks described as. 'Adarsha Lipi Pusthaka'printed by Maruthi Book Depot, laying specialemphasis on the use of these by means of a'N. B.' in the notifications and enjoining Educa-tional Officers in the Circular to enforce the same.Of the two persons who have filed the petition,the first is a dealer in Kannada copy books, whoof course would be materially affected by hisbooks being excluded from use in schools duringthe year; the second petitioner is a Chr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant79; AIR1955Mys79
ORDER1. This case has been referred to a Division - Bench by the learned Judge before whom it was first posted for hearing as the point Involved for decision is said to be a novel one about which there Is no ruling of tills Court. The question raised is whether a stranger can be directed or rather compelled at the Instance of a party to & suit to allow a Commission appointed by the Court to enter upon his lands for purpose of inspection and preparation of an inventory as regards stumps of trees etc. On the application I. A. 23 filled by the plaintiff in a suit relating to partnership after passing of a preliminary decree a Commissioner was appointed to make a report about the quality & number of trees cut and removed some years ago by seeing the stumps. It appears that the petitioner sold the trees to the defendant in the suit under Ex. VIII or Ex. M and that the information sought for has a bearing on the final decree to be passed in the case. The petitioner offered obstruction to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant102; AIR1954Mys102
Medapa, C.J.1. It will be necessary for a proper consideration of the arguments advanced in the case to set out in some detail the facts and circumstances which have led up to, and relevant for the disposal of this petition.The petitioner and the respondents were duly nominated candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Tarikere Constituency at the general elections held in this State on 4-1-1952. Respondents 5 to 9 withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time and as a result only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested the elections. In the elections the petitioner secured 8093 votes as against 8059, 6239, 1644 and 1152 votes obtained by respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The Returning Officer thereupon declared the petitioner as the successful candidate in the election and the said declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-2-1952 as per the provisions of Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1951.The petitioner lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!