Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant10; AIR1962Mys10
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) To pronounce on the question of law debated before us, it is necessary to State the relevant facts. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted on 5-11-1950. The matter was taken up in second appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad in S.A. 334/1951-52. It went up before a Division Bench consisting of Qamar Hasan and Manohar Pershad, JJ. The question that had to be considered by the Bench was one of fact. The learned Judges differed in their conclusions as to the correct conclusions to be arrived at and therefore referred the matter to a third Judge, but before the matter could be decided by the third Judge the States Reorganisation Act came into force and the area from which this litigation arose came within the jurisdiction of this High Court. Consequently the appeal was transferred to the file of this Court. (2) When the appeal was taken up for hearing by my learned brother Iqbal Hussian. J., the learned counsel for respondent contended that as...
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 : 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 : AIR1961Kant210; AIR1961Mys210
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 511, 548 and 549 of 1960, were Sales Tax Officers Class II in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and those in Writ Petitions Nos. 510 and 540 of 1960, Sales Tax Officers, Grade III, in the then State of Bombay. When three districts of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and four districts of the State of Bombay became part of the now State of Mysore, which was formed on November 1, 1956, by the States Reorganization Act, they were allotted under that Act for service in the new State of Mysore. They are now in the service of that State.2. The civil service of the new State of Mysore consisted principally of persons who were before its formation, holding posts under the then Stales of Mysore, Hyderabad, Coorg, Madras and. Bombay. The various services of which there wag thus a concourse in the new State of Mysore, required integration, and, for that purpose, that State made on May 25, 1957, a list recording the provisional determination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant112; AIR1962Mys112
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The eleven petitioners before us were Senior Assistants, in the Secretariat of the State of Bombay. Under the provisional of the States Reorganization Act, they were allotted to serve in the new State of Mysore. The provisional allotment was made at the time of the Leo reorganization, and we have been told that the final allotment under sub-section (3)of section 115 of the States Reorganization Act was made in the year 1960.(2) On November 18, 1957, the Government of the new State of Mysore published what is described as a provisional Inter-State Seniority List of the First Division Clerks in the Mysore Government Secretariat. Persons who were dissatisfied with their positions in the said list. 'on grounds connected with the establishment of equivalence reorganization' were directed that submit their objections to the Under - Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, with in thirty days from the date of the publication of the List.(3) The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant5; AIR1962Mys5
Hombe Gowda, J. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal and arises out of a suit filed by him for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- being the principal and interest executed by the respondent in favour of his father Rama Subbiah. The mortage-bond stipulated a period of six years from its date for redemption. It further stipulated annually and that interest at nine per cent. was payable annually and that if there was a default in its payment during any one of the years the mortage money without waiting till the stipulated period.The respondent did not pay the interest regularly as it fell due. Hence the mortage on 20/12/1938 issued a registered notice calling upon the respondent to pay up the entire mortage money with in ten days of the receipt of the notice. He further stated in the said notice that if the respondent failed to pay the amount without any further notice. In spite of this notice the mortgagor did not pay the mortage money but yet Rama Subbiah ( the mortgagee) did not file ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1962CriLJ55
1. The appellant who was the Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Raichur District between January and April 1958 was tried and convicted in Criminal Case No. 2/2 of 1958 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Raichur, under Section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to suffer further one month's simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that when P.W. 4 (Mallikarjun Maski) the agent of Sharan Baswaraj (P.W. 3) went to the appellant on 14.4.1958 for the issue of a fitness certificate to lorry No. MYQ, 432 belonging to P.W. 3, the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50 before certifying to the fitness of the lorry m question; P.W. 4 duly informed this fact to P.W. 3; P.W. 3 was not willing to pay any bribe; he (P.W. 3) desired to bring to book the appellant; therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1962]46ITR568(KAR); [1962]46ITR568(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This application is for prohibition restraining the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of Bagalkot from proceeding with the assessment which he proposed to make in respect of the agricultural income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58. 2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Mudhol in the district of Bijapur, was called upon by the Income-tax Officer by a notice issued to him on June 10, 1958, to file his return in respect of his agricultural income for the assessment year 1957-58. Although the petitioner did furnish the return he was called upon to furnish he asserts in this application that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess his agricultural income for the year 1957-58. 3. The challenge made to the competence of the Income-tax Officer is based on the ground that since during a part of the previous year to which that assessment year related, the lands from which the petitioner derived his agricultural income were not within the new State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant280; AIR1962Mys280
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner in this case was a Senior Professor of Tharka in the Government Sanskrit College at Bangalore. On April 15, 1957, the Principal of that College issued a memo intimating him that he had been relieved of his duties as Professor with effect from April 14, 1957. On April 14, 1957 the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years. (2) The petitioner contended that in accordance with the service condition which had been incorporated by the then Rajpramukh of Mysore in the Mysore Services Regulations by a Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on April 29, 1955, he could be retired only after he attained the age of 58 years and not earlier. (3) When the petitioner applied to the Principal of his College for a copy of the Order of the Director of Public Instruction who had directed his retirement, hew not granted that copy, but was informed by his Principal that his post had been ordered to be kept vacant. (4) The petitioner thereupon ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant128; AIR1962Mys128
ORDER(1) The short point to be decided in this petition is whether the Mysore Muslim Wakf Board is to be brought on record as a necessary and proper party interested in the proceedings under the provisions of Section 145 Cri. P.C.(2) The facts leading up to this petition are briefly as follows: A mosque in Gulbarga town called the Jail Road Mosque and the properties attached thereto, it is undisputed, are the Wakf properties. The members of the Party I before the trial Magistrate alleged that they are in actual possession, management and control of the Mosque and its properties and as such, are entitled to continue in the said management, while the members of Party II contend that it is they who have got the actual control and management of the Mosque and its properties having been appointed by the Mysore Muslim Wakf Board. The third party in the intervene and that party is none other than the Muslim Wakf Board itself. It filed a petition before the trial Magistrate requesting that it ...
Tag this Judgment!