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 : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962AP65
ORDER(1) These revision petitions raise an interesting question. The City Civil Court, Madras, returned two plaints for presentation to the proper court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaints were re-presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Kurnool, within the State of Andhra, subsequent to its formation. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to credit for the court-fee levied in the City Civil Court,Madras? (2) As the question is bare of authority so far as this Court is concerned and is of far reaching importance to the revenues of the State, notice was given to the learned Advocate General and I have had the benefit of his argument.(3) For a proper appreciation of the point arising for determination, it is necessary to refer to the legislative history of the law relating to the levy and collection of court-fees. Nearly ninety years ago, the Central Legislature enacted the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), which extended to the whole of B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1962Mad81
(1) Roya Kuppa Chetti, the first defendant to the suit out of which this second appeal arises, and Krishnaswami Chetti (the second defendant), his grandson born of his deceased son, were members of a Joint Hindu family. Krishnaswami Chetti, still a minor, is under the care and protection of his mother Sundarammal, who has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the suit. Both of them are living in the house, which is the subject matter of this litigation. Roya Kuppa Chetti however did not take to them kindly; it has been found that his attitude towards his grandson was hostile. Being thus obliged by circumstances, the mother of the minor acting on his behalf, issued a notice on 22-12-1953, to his grandfather unequivocally expressing an intention to separate from the family and demanding partition. There was no response to the demand. Instead Roya Kuppa Chetti sold on 1-2-1954 the suit property to the plaintiff purporting to do so on behalf of the joint family consisting of himself and ...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC73; [1962]1SCR702
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, confirming the decree of the trial Judge dismissing the suit. It comes before us on a certificate under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Rajasthan after the Reorganisation of the States. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) and damages suffered by the appellant due to the refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Go...
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 : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP280
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Land Acquisition (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act No. 5 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act. It came into force on 1st April 1959. By Section 3 of the Act the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to Bhopal area, was amended as follows;(1) After Clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act of 1894 a new clause was added defining 'Bhopal area'. (2) A new section, Section 17A, was inserted in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, giving to the Government the power to issue a direction to the Collector that it is urgently necessary to acquire immediate possession of any building site situated in Bhopal area, and providing that upon the issue of such a direction the provisions of Section 17 would in all respects apply in the case of such site as they apply in the case ot waste or arable land. (3) A new proviso was added to the first clause of Section 23(1). The proviso runs thus: 'Provided that when the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP50
Krishnan, J.1. The petitioner, who had been temporarily appointed as the Secretary, Kendra Panchayat, Makdone, in District Ujjain, was removed from service by the order of the Director, Panchayat and Samaj Sewa, dated 19-10-1957. He addressed the Government what he describes as 'a revision application' and got on 20-2-1959, that is, about a year and a half after the removal, an unfavourable reply, after it, he took some months to obtain certain certified copies and ultimately filed this petition in October 1959. His allegation is that the authority that dismissed him is not the authority that appointed him and, further that it is subordinate; the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution have not been fulfilled; and again, that in regard to some of the grounds of removal, he had not been called upon or provided an Opportunity to explain or show cause.The questions for decision are, firstly, as a preliminary point, whether a delay of about sixteen months spent in seeking relief in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1596; [1962]2SCR159
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal, with the special leave of this Court, against an order of Naik, J., of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 320 of 1959, by which he disallowed certain pleas raised by the appellants. The respondent is the landlord. 2. On September 11, 1942, the appellants had executed a rent note, under which they were in occupation of the premises in dispute. The period of the tenancy was 15 years, and it expired by the efflux of time on March 14, 1957. The landlord thereupon filed a suit on April 25, 1957, for possession of the premises, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Erandol. Meanwhile, under s. 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (to be called the Act, in this judgment), a notification was issued, applying Part II of the Act to the area where the property is situated. The appellants claimed protection of s. 12 in Part II of the Act, which deprived the landlord of the ri...
Tag this Judgment!