Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1964KAR673; (1966)IILLJ475Kant; (1965)2MysLJ810
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. The petitioner, who was the Joint Director of Public Instruction, has since retired during the pendency of this writ petition. The facts and circumstances which have led to this writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows. 2. The petitioner who was in Bombay educational Service was confirmed in September, 1951 in class I (Administrative Branch) of that service. In July, 1953, while he was occupying the post of the Educational Inspector, Dharwar, he made a speech, in consequence of which he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were taken by the Government of Bombay. As a result of those proceedings, the Government of Bombay passed an order in October, 1954 directing (i) that the petitioner's increments be withheld for a period of three years with out permanent effect, and (ii) that he should not be appointed as Educational Inspector or as Principal of any training college during that period. 3. On 12 November, 1954, the petitioner was furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1964]53ITR757(KAR); [1964]53ITR757(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These petitions raise more or less common question of law. The principal question that arise for consideration is whether the 'dividends' received by the assessees in the relevant 'previous years' in respect of coffee delivered to the coffee Board in prior years can be considered, for the purpose of agricultural income-tax, as their agricultural income of the year in which the 'dividends' were received. The concerned Agricultural Income-tax Officers have taken or appears to take the view that the 'dividends' in question should be considered as the agricultural income of the assessees in the year of their receipt. 2. The petitioners in these petitions except in W.P. No. 913 of 1959 prayed for writs of mandamus or mandatory directions to the concerned Agricultural Income-tax Officer, to forbears from levying or collecting taxes under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. On their cash receipts ('dividends') relating to their coffee crop of 1955-56 or earlier seas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant25; AIR1965Mys25; (1964)1MysLJ478
Govinda Bhat, J. (1) The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1979, 2003, 2009 and 2012 of 1963, aggrieved by the Order bearing No. D. 2-Dis. 390/58-59 dated September 12, 1963, of respondent I, whereby the petitioners were reverted as II Division Clerks from their officiating post of II Grade Sub Registrars, have sought relief in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and prayed that the order impugned may be quashed. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2023 and 2024/63 similarly reverted by the order bearing No. D2-Dis. 390/58-59 dated August 22, 1963, of respondent 2 in the said petitions, have also prayed that the order of reversion may be quashed. Since the grounds of challenge in all these petitions are common, they can conveniently be disposed by a common order.(2)The petitioners were appointed as Sub Registry Karkuns in the Department of Registration in the erstwhile Bombay State; on the reorganization of States, they were allotted to the new Mysore States. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1964)IILLJ433Kant
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.- 1. Petitioners, who are allottees to the State of Mysore under Sub-section (3) of S. 115 of the States Reorganization Act. 1956, from the Department of Excise and Prohibition under the Board of Revenue from Madras State, have filed this writ petitione under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of respondent 3, the Commissioner of Excise, who has included the names of the petitioner in the provisional inter-State seniority list of Excise Assistant Inspectors as on 1 November 1956, on the ground that respondent 3, when he prepared and published the inter-State seniority list, was not the head of the department. Though in their petition the petitioners had claimed a large number of distinct and separate reliefs, they restricted their prayer in their affidavit filed on 9 April 1964 to the following two reliefs : '(i) to declare that the petitioners constitute a separate department, viz., Excise and Prohibition Department, under the Inspector-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant100; AIR1966Mys100; (1965)1MysLJ577
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This second appeal concerns the succession to the properties of a certain Siddalingiah who died in the year 1954. His wife Siddavva who survived him died in the year 1956 and the defendant is their daughter.(2) The source of this appeal is a suit brought by Channavva the plaintiff, claiming to be he second wife of Siddalingiah. That she was married in the year 1951 to Siddalingiah in the State of Bombay was her case, and, she claimed Siddalingiah's properties as his widow to the exclusion of the defendant. She sought a decree for possession of those properties from the defendant.(3) The defendant did not in the courts below admit that the plaintiff was the wife of Siddalingiah, and pleaded that she was only his concubine. But, both the courts below pronounced that there was a marriage between the plaintiff and Siddalingiah. But while the Munsiff who thought that that marriage was invalid dismissed the suit, the District Judge to whom the plaintiff appealed, found th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant47; AIR1965Mys47
Chandrashekhar, J. (1)In these two writ petitions, the petitioner G.N. Sarwade and N.B. Patil, have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government, (i) to confirm their appointments as Tahsildars with effect from 24-9-1958 and 17-9-1958 respectively; (ii) to fix their ranks above respondents 2 to 107 in the seniority list of Tahsildars and (iii) to consider their cases for promotion to class I posts over and above the cases of respondents 2 to 107.(2) Respondent 1 is the state of Mysore, and respondents 2 to 107 are officers in the Mysore Administrative Service, who according to the petitioners, are still officiating as Tahsildars.(3) The following facts are undisputed between the parties :--The posts of Tahsildars are class II posts in the Mysore Administrative Service. The petitioners are among the fifty officials selected by the Mysore Public Service Commission under the Mysore Tahsildars and Block Development Officers (Recruitment) Rules, 1958, issued under No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant22; AIR1966Mys22; (1965)IILLJ508Kant; (1965)1MysLJ435
Sadasivayya, J. 1. The three petitioners were, prior to 1 November, 1956, the date on which the Reorganization of States came into effect, serving as permanent overseers in the former State of Bombay. From what has been stated in the affidavit which has been filed by the petitioners in support of their petition and has been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, there were two categories of overseers in Bombay. These two categories were referred to as the Subordinate Service of Engineers (S.S.E.). One category was known as the temporary establishment; it consisted of persons who were qualified as holders of either a diploma in Civil Engineering, or a degree in Engineering. The minimum qualification which had been prescribed for being eligible to be admitted into the temporary establishment was the possession of a diploma in Civil Engineering. In the case of the persons who possessed the higher qualification of a degree in Engineering, a benefit was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)ILLJ71Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. Common question of law arise in these petitions. But for convenience sake we shall first take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 1653 of 1963. The results of the other two writ petitions depend on the result of this writ petition. 2. Writ petition No. 1653 of 1963. - The petitioner herein were serving in the Revenue Department in the State of Madras till 1 November 1956. They were allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date of the State reorganization. Even before the State reorganization they had been temporarily appointed as deputy tahsildars, but by the date of the States reorganization they had been reverted to a lower rank for want of posts of deputy tahsildars. Petitioner 1 was again appointed as deputy tahsildar on 12 December 1957, petitioner 2 and 3 on 1 April 1958 and petitioner 4 on 25 July, 1958. Ever since then, they have continuously acted as deputy tahsildars till the filing of this petition. Respondents 7 and 8, prior to the reorganization of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant76; AIR1965Mys76; (1965)1MysLJ158
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) In this appeal, we are asked to pronounce against the constitutionality of sections 19 and 29(2)(c) of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Mysore Act No. 21 of 1964).(2) The question arises in this way.On July 5, 1956, the Civil Judge, Senior Division Bijapur made an order in certain execution proceedings refusing the adjournment prayed for by the two judgment-debtors who are the appellants before us and directing execution to proceed. The value of the subject matter of the suit which is source of this appeal was more than Rs. 10,000/- but less than Rs. 20,000/-. Under Section 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, in all cases in which the subject matter of the suit exceeds Rs. 10,000/- and appeal could be preferred to the High Court. It was under the provisions of that section that the judgment-debtors who felt aggrieved by the order of the Civil Judge preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay which, on a certificate issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1966(12)FLR179]; (1967)ILLJ87Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. In this appeal preferred by the State Government, the challenge is to an order of acquittal made by a Magistrate of Haveri in a prosecution commenced under S. 22A of the Minimum Wages Act (Central Act 11 of 1948). 2. The accused was the secretary of the Haveri Municipality, Haveri, constituted under the Bombay District Municipalities Act. The accusation was threefold. The first was that the naka clerks in the employment of the municipality were not allowed the weekly day of rest enjoined by rule 24 of the Mysore Minimum Wages Rules, 1958. The second was that there was a failure to maintain an overtime register showing payments of overtime wages in disobedience to rule 28(2). The third was that the wage slips in form VI were not issued to those clerks as required by rule 29(2). 3. The finding of the Magistrate was that there was no obedience to the relevant provisions of these three rules, and it was also admitted by the accused in his statement under S. 342, Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!