Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-19-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant137; AIR1955Mys137
padmanabhiah, j.1. this is a petition filed by the petitioner under article 226, constitution of india, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other direction or order quashing the order of the respondent-government bearing g. o. no. 7012-7016/l. r. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner or, in the alternative, to sanction the full pension as ordered in g.o. no. 2722-26/l. r. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953.2. the facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under.3. the petitioner was an amildar in the state service. in their order no. r. 7012-7016/l. r. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, the government directed the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the ground that the officer was found corrupt and guilty of misconduct. they, however, on the representations made by the petitioner directed in their order no. r. 2722-26/l. r. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953, that the petitioner should be paid his full pension, but the accountant-general took objection to the grant of pension to the petitioner on the ground that the order offended the provisions of article 223, mysore service regulations, and observed that the petitioner was only entitled to compassionate allowances as pro-vided therein. thereupon the government modified the original order and withdrew, in their order no. g. 11972-76/l. r. 118-53-4, dated 23-10-1953, the pension previously ordered, and allowed compassionateallowances permissible under article 223, mysore .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-10-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant113; AIR1955Mys113; 1955CriLJ1269
order1. this is a revision petition preferred by the petitioners-accused 1 and 2 against the order of the learned district magistrate, chickmagalur in cr.r.p. 8 of 1954, setting aside the order of the. learned special second class magistrate, tarikere in c. c. 25/54 holding that sanction of government to prosecute these petitioners was necessary under section 197, cr. p. c.2. the facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly these:3. petitioners 1 and 2 are accused 1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant in c. c. 25/54 on the file of the special second class magistrate, tarikere. the complainant is a hotel-keeper at kadur. the petitioners are president and vice-president respectively of the kadur town municipal council. a-3 to a-10 are the employees in the said municipality. accused 11 and 12 are the police constables working at kadur. the respondent-complainant's petition was that on 16-5-1953 the said accused persons trespassed into his hotel and committed theft of moveables worth rs. 150/-. the learned magistrate referred the complaint to the police under section 156, cr. p. c. and the police submitted a 'b' report. anyway, the complainant undertook to prove the case and the case was taken on file.the accused took a preliminary objection stating that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as against a-l and a-2 inasmuch as no sanction of government as contemplated under section 197, cr. p. c. was obtained by the complainant to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant126; AIR1955Mys126
venkataramaiya, c. j.1. the property in dispute which is a house in civil station, bangalore, admittedly belonged to one chandbi who executed a sale deed ex. xv dated 30-8-1915 with respect to it in favour of syed abdulla. exhibit g dated 4-2-1938 is the other sale deed similarly executed by her in favour of dastagir khan who in turn executed the sale deed ex. j in favour of peer khan. there was resale on 19-2-44 to dastagir khan and on the same day he executed ex. f to the plaintiff. the property was attached in execution of a decree obtained against syed dawood son of syed abdulla the purchaser under ex. xv. the plaintiff objected to the attachment alleging that he was the owner but the petition was dismissed on the ground that it was belated. in order to have it set aside the suit from which this appeal arises was filed against the purchaser of the property in execution proceedings who is defendant 1. the decree-holder was impleaded as defendant 2 and the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor syed dawood were the other defendants. the learned subordinate judge after recording evidence granted a decree to the plaintiff. the purchaser at the execution sale appeals. the plaintiff and the decree-holder are the respondents. the jugment-debtor's legal representatives are not parties to the appeal.2. two contentions pressed on behalf of the appellant against the decisions of the lower court are that the sale deed in favour of the judgment-debtor's father being anterior to .....Tag this Judgment!