Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant108; AIR1959Mys108; ILR1959KAR150
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was the opponent-landlord in Revision Application No. TEN/B/3535 of 1936 on the file of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. The present Respondent No. 1 was the applicant-tenant in the said revision application. In that revision application, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 10-9-1956 set aside the order which had been passed by the Prant Officer in favour of the landlord and dismissed the original application which had been filed by the landlord, for possession of the land of which the applicant in the revision application was the tenant. The present petition under Article 227 is directed against the said order passed in revision by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal.2. On behalf of the tenant-respondent No. 1, it has been contended firstly, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227, and secondly, that even if it is held that this Court has jurisdiction, there are no good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant253; AIR1959Mys253; ILR1959KAR1
1. This second appeal raises a small but very important point of law. It relates to the interpretation of the expression 'time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree' as mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The suit in this case was No. 121/1 of 1951-52 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gulbarga. The Judgment in that suit was delivered on 30-9-54 but the decree was actually signed as late as on 21-12-54. The appeal No. 37/4/56 was filed in the District Court of Gulbarga on .23-12-54. A preliminary objection having been raised that the appeal was barred under Art, 152 of the Limitation Act, the same was upheld by the learned District Judge and it was dismissed on 28-3-57. It is against this that the present appeal has been filed.2. According to the learned District Judge, tho period of 30 days under Article 152 of the Limitation Act has to be counted from the date of the decree which means the date of the judgment ) i.e., 80-9-54. That is how the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant26; AIR1961Mys26
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner before us was appointed as a probationary Assistant Engineer by the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1926. In June 1949, he was posted as Executive Engineer for the Bandsura Project Division in that State. In that division, he was in charge of a project known as the Khasapur Project.2. In 1951, the petitioner was called upon by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to explain some irregularities said to have been committed by him while he was in charge of that project. On 16-3-1955 he was asked by a notice to show cause why action should not be taken in regard to four charges which had been framed against him.3. In 1956, after an enquiry was held into that matter, charges 1 and 2 were dropped. In respect of the third charge, the petitioner was exonerated but the fourth charge was held to have been proved and it was decided by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant220; AIR1960Mys220; ILR1959KAR523
(1) This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Extra Assistant Judge of Dharwar dated 27-12-1954 in appeal No. 677 of 1955 reversing the decree in Original Suit No. 68 of 1951 on the file of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Gadag.(2) The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal sued for recovery of money of Rs. 930/- inclusive of interest on the basis of a pronote dated 29-9-47 said to have been executed by one Davalsab the deceased for a sum of Rs. 400/-. He further pleaded that the said Davalsab paid an amount of Rs. 200/- towards interest on 9th August, 1950 which was endorsed on the pronote under his signature. The defendant Davalsab died within three days of the institution of the suit and his widow and minor children were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased.In their written statements while admitting the execution of the pronote they inter alia contended that Davalsab did not make any payment on 9th August, 1950 n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant37; AIR1961Mys37; ILR1959KAR829; (1960)IILLJ574Kant
ORDERA.R. Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is a Deputy Chief Engineer in the service of the State of Mysore. On 25 March 1959, the Government of Mysore placed him under suspension pending enquiry into four charges framed against him. In this writ petition, the petitioner asks that that order should be quashed. 2. The impugned order was made in the following circumstances. 3. The petitioner entered the service of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1926, as a Probationary Assistant Engineer. In June 1949 by which time he had become an Executive Engineer, he was in charge of a project known as the Khasapur Project in the Bandsura Project Division of that State. In June 1951 he was called upon to explain some irregularities stated have been committed by him in the performance of his official duties. On 16 March 1955, a notice was issued to him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against in respect of four charges which were enumerated in the enclosure to that notice. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant222; AIR1960Mys222; ILR1960KAR130
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, was an young man who was prosecuting his studies in the Government College, Mangalore, in the year 1950. On 5-8-1950, when he was proceeding to the Rationing Office in Mangalore on a bicycle with his friend P.W. 4, along a road known as Kadri road, a motor vehicle belonging to the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Madras, bearing Register No. M. S. C. 9714, which, according to the plaintiff, was being driven at an excessive speed, knocked him down in front Beedi Factory, situate in that road. As a result of that accident, the plaintiff lost consciousness which he partially regained in the hospital to which he was admitted as an inpatient about midnight on that date. He became fully conscious only five days after his admission to the hospital where he was treated for the injuries sustained by him during the accident.(2) Ext. A-3, a certificate prepared by P.W. 2, who was the Medical Officer in charge of that hos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant275; AIR1960Mys275
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, impugns in this writ petition the legality of tax imposed in respect of transactions covered by sales effected by him outside the District of South Kanara but within the areas of the old Mysore State, both of which were since integrated into the new Mysore State. This argument is pressed only in respect of the period 1-4-1957 to 30-9-1957 till which date different statutes levying sales tax were in force in different areas of the new Mysore State. Prior to the reorganisation of the States, territories of the old Mysore States as it then was and such turnover of the petitioner had been exempted or excluded from taxation under the Madras Act as constituting turnover in respect of transactions in the course of inter-State trade.It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the position was not different even after the reorganisation of States until on 1-10-1957 the Mysore Sales Tax Act was passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant247; AIR1961Mys247
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were Excise Assistant Inspectors in the service of the new State of Mysore were promoted as Excise Inspectors in December, 1958. The petitioner who is an Excise Assistant Inspector of that State seeks their removal by quo-warrantor from their posts and his own appointment by mandamus to one of them. He applies for a further direction that, after his appointment in that way, he should be placed, in the list of seniority, above respondent 5, who, although appointed as Excise Inspector in December, 1957, is, according to him, is junior in the service of the State.2. The dates on which these four persons entered the service of the former State of Mysore and those on which they were promoted as Excise Assistant Inspectors arc set out in the following tabular statement:--NameRank inthe provisional Inter-State Seniority list.Date of employment. Date ofpromotion as Excise Assistant InspectorRudraradhya(Petitioner)1213-7-194514-9-1949Chikkarangiah(Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys81; ILR1960KAR766
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 14-11-1959 by the Election Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Election Petition No. 258 of 1957 on its file. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa as a candidate on behalf of the Lok Sevak Sangha and Shankaragouda Basan Gouda as a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party, contested for a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yelburga Constituency of Raichur District, Mysore State, in the last general election of 1957. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa having polled only 14,500 votes, Shankargouda Basan Gouda was declared duly elected, he having polled 20,541 votes.Thereupon, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act alleging that because of the various corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his agent and persons interested in the respondent ...
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!