Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys265
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioners in these 16 Writ Petitions were applicants for selection by the Mysore Public Service commission for being appointed by the State Government as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Government. The first respondent is the State Government, and the second the Mysore Public Service Commission. Some of the petitioners are Engineering Graduates seeking entry into Government Service for the first time and the others are already Junior Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Government, seeking appointment as Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. None of the petitioners was selected by the Public Service Commission or appointed by the Government as Assistant Engineer. All of them pray that this Court may be pleased to quash by the issue of an appropriate Writ the Notification of the State Government bearing No. P. W. D. 10 SAG 59 dated 31st October 1961, whereby the Government appointed as Assistant Engineers 88 persons nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys278
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. On November 26, 1957, the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara, invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of a permit for the operation of a stage carriage, on the route between Karkal and Udyavar in the district of South Kanara. The last date within which those applications had to be presented was March 22, 1958. A certain Gopalasetty who was the husband of the petitioner before us, and, respondents 3 and 6 in this writ petition were some of the applicants who presented applications foe the grant of a permit. By a resolution of April 25, 1958, the Regional Transport Authority, decided to grant the permit to respondent 6. Against that decision of the Regional Transport Authority, four Appeals were preferred to the State Transport Authority which had then jurisdiction to hear those appeals. Gopalasetty the husband of the petitioner, was not, however, one of the persons who preferred an appeal to the State Transport Au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys332; ILR1963KAR536; (1963)2MysLJ253
ORDER1. The solitary question that arises for decision in this revision petition is whether the security bond tendered by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 herein, in O.S. No. 7 of 1957 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in pursuance of the Order of this Court in I. A. No. I, in R.F.A. No. 77 of 1962 on the file of this Court, requires to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the same requires to be registered. The petitioner has come up in revision against that order. This matter originally came up before our learned brother Hombe Gowda, J., sitting singly. His Lordship referred the matter to a Division Bench as there is sharp cleavage of judicial opinion.The question of law referred to us for decision is not free from difficulty. As mentioned by Hombe Gowda, J. on that question the judicial opinion is sharply divided. Further, unless we are thoroughly convinced that the view taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant240; AIR1964Mys240
Hegde, J.1. These petitions raise common questions of law. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioners formulated six questions of law. They are :(i) Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is beyond the competence of the State Legislature since the said subsection purports to amend the various enactments repealed by Section 40 (1) of the 'Act'; (ii) Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the 'Act' has to be struck down as ultra vires Under Article 245(1) read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India, since the State Legislature cannot have extra-territorial jurisdiction: (iii) The introduction of Sub-section (1A) in Section 40 of the 'Act' in the year 1962 is opposed to Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act; (iv) Section 6 (1) of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1962 is a colourable piece of legislation and is liable to be struck down; (v) Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the 'Act' has to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant229; AIR1964Mys229; (1964)1MysLJ212
Kalagate, J. 1. The petitioner who is a Commercial Tax Officer has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting this Court (1) to quash the Notification No. FD 105 CSE 60, dated the 19th November 1962, issued by Respondent 1, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction; and (2) to direct Respondent-1 to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Commercial Taxes with, effect from 19-11-1962 by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or? direction as this court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner states that he is a double graduate of the University of Bombay and was appointed on 24th April 1946 as Sales Tax Inspector in the Sales Tax Department of the erstwhile State of Bombay. On and March 1953 he was promoted as Sales Tax Officer, Grade in, on the scale of pay of Rs. 250-15-400-EB-20 500.3. In the Sales Tax Department of the former State of Bombay, though there were tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant86; AIR1966Mys86; (1965)2MysLJ229
(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Judge, Belgium in Civil Appeal No.51 of 1957 on his file.(2) The facts relevant to the disposal of this second appeal may be stated briefly as follows: The appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule house and a court yard situated to the south of C.T.S. No. 1714 at Ramdrug against the defendant who are respondents in this second appeal. The plaintiff's suit was that the suit property belonged to him; a sale transaction with regard to the same was settled between the parties; the plaintiff executed an agreement deed exhibit 44 dated 26-2-1953 by which he agreed to sell the property to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 1,800 and in pursuance thereof an earnest money of Rs. 400 was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. It was stated in the agreement deed that the balance amount i.e., Rs. 1400 will be paid within six months from the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant84; AIR1964Mys84
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In these applications, we are asked to pronounce against the constitutionality of a legislation made by the legislature of the new State of Mysore instituted the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Mysore Act No. 14 of 1961), and. In the decision of this question, we had theadvantage of an interesting and learned argument on both sides.2. The applicants are village officers of the new State of Mysore. Some of them are Shanbhogs and the others are patels. We have before us Shanbhogs and patels appointed under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, (Mysore Act No. IV of 1908) and village officers known as Karnams appointed under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. III of 1895). There is one more before us who is called a stipendiary shanbhog appointed under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code.3. In the thirty six matters which were heard together, there are in all 943 applicants 924 out of them are shanbhogs among whom one is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant19; AIR1965Mys19
ORDER(1) The petitioner who has been officiating as Deputy Superintendent of Police on promotion from his substantive post of Inspector of Police, has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the memo dated 15-1-1962 which, in effect, reduces him in rank, on the ground that the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution had not been followed in passing that order. He has complained that the order has not only resulted in loss of higher pay and allowances but has also the effect of postponement of his future chances of promotion and consequent loss of seniority.(2) The facts relevant to the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are few and simple; The petitioner who is a double graduate of the Madras University joined the Police Department in the former Coorg State as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1935 and served in that capacity till 1-11-1949, when he was promoted as Inspector of Police. He was confirmed in the latter grade in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant54; AIR1965Mys54; ILR1964KAR545; (1964)1MysLJ254
Narayana Pai, J. (1) The two questions referred to the Full Bench in these cases relate to the effect as well as the validity of Section 5 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1928 (Mysore Act XVIII of 1928).(2) One question referred by the common order of reference in the three Revision Petitions is the same as the first of the two questions referred by the common order of reference in the Second Appeals. The two questions are the following :-'I. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act apply only to transactions which took place at any time within a period of six years before the Act was extended to the local area concerned or whether those provisions are also applicable to transactions entered into subsequent to such extension? (2) Whether the above provisions have ceased to be operative after the introduction of the Central Evidence Act and Central Transfer of Property Act to Mysore, as being contrary to the provisions of those enactments?'(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1966)ILLJ265Kant
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. Petitioner Sangappa Basappa Upnal who had been an officiating aval karkun or sheristedar had been reverted in consequence of an order dated 11 March, 1959, made by the Government of Mysore, to his substantive post of a clerk. (It would appear that subsequent to the said order of reversion the petitioner has been again promoted on an officiating basis to the post of an aval karkun in due course; but, this is not material for the purposes of the present writ petition.) The present writ petition has been filed for the purpose of getting an order from this Court quashing the said Government order dated 11 March 1959 (which is to be found in annexure H). Respondent 1 is the State of Mysore; respondent 2 is the Divisional Commissioner of Belgaum Division and respondent 3 is one Kalpavrix who also is an aval karkun and it is at his instance that the order as per annexure H was passed by the Government of Mysore. It may be stated that annexure H does not in terms refer ...
Tag this Judgment!