Karnataka Court October 1950 Judgments
A. Rama Rao Vs. Venkataramanachar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant20; AIR1951Mys20
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, on I. A, No. VI in O. S. No. 70 of 1944-45. The petitioner filed the suit for redemption against respondents 1 to 3. He deposited Rs. 2700 being the amount due on the suit mortgages. A decree was passed directing redemption and allowing costs and mesne profits. It was ordered that the mesne profits should be ascertained on an application filed for the purpose. Such an application has been filed. Meanwhile, respondent 4 obtained a decree is O. S. No. 85 of 1946-47 against respondents 2 and 3 and attached two-thirds of the mortgage amount due to them under the decree. The petitioner filed the application, I. A. No. VI, referred to above, contending that the amount due to his judgment-debtors is what remains after deducting costs and mesne profits due to him oat of the amount deposited by him for redemption. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application stating that since t...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant26; AIR1951Mys26; ILR1951KAR192
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. The petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 872/49.50 before the City Magistrate, Bangalore. He was charge sheeted by the police for an offence under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, as applied to Mysore, for contravening Clause 3, Mysore Food Order 1949 (Restrictions of Service of Meals by Catering Establishments and others). 2. The case for the protection is that the accused was running a new catering establishment styled 'Lake View Milk Bar without a permit in that behalf. The accused admitted that he was running the Milk Bar without a permit from the Director of Food Supplies. A charge was, therefore, framed against him under Rule 81 (4) for contravening the provisions of Clause (3) of the Mysore Food (Restrictions of Service of Meals by Catering Establishments and others) Order, 1949, and the learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in default to undergo Rule 1., for 15 days. This revision petition is filed aga...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Mysore Vs. Malavalli Thimmiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant51; AIR1951Mys51; ILR1951KAR370
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment in C. C, 3246 of 48-49 on the file of the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore, acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 25, City of Bangalore Improvement Act of 1945, the operation of which is extended from 18-3-49 to the area in which the respondent's land is situated.2. The Municipal Sub-overseer who has been examined in the case as the first witness for the prosecution has stated that on 23-3-49 the accused was gutting sites marked out by fixing atones. Twenty persons were working on the sites according to this witness. P. W. 2 is the Assistant Engineer, Trust Board. states that when ho went to the place with P. W. 1 the demarcation atones were being fixed. Some sites had been demarcated and some were being demarcated when he went there on 23-3-1949, He saw the accused there but did cot take a statement from him. The case of the accused is that he did mark the sites prior to 18-8-49 on which data the Act was made applicab...
Tag this Judgment!Basavegowda Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant33; AIR1951Mys33
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J. 1. The petitioner is accused 2 in Sessions Case No. 9/49-60 who, as accused 3 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 43-50, stood charged for an offence under Section 467, Penal Code. Separate charges were also framed against the second and third accused (in Sessions Case No. 8/49-50) under Section 82, Mysore Registration Act. On a motion by the Public Prosecutor, the charge for the offence under Section 82, Registration Act was kept by for a separate trial, as a joint trial for the offences both under the Penal Code and the Registration Act was considered by the Sessions Judge to be irregular. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 467, Penal Code. The charge under Section 82, Registration Act was then taken up for trial in Sessions case No. 9/49-50. The petitioner filed an application under Section 403, Criminal P. C., objecting to the trial on the principle of autrefois acquit, The learned Sessions Judge held that the acquittal under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!T. Bangarappa Vs. Ranganatha Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Kant64; AIR1953Mys64
ORDER1. The accused in C. C. No. 264 of 49-50 on the file of the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Sagar, has been proceeded against under Section 355, Penal Code on a private complaint on the allegation that the complainant was shoe beaten causing him dishonour. The accused raised an objection that the present prosecution is barred under S. 403 as he had been already prosecuted for the same offence under Section 56(o) and (q), Mysore Police Act in C. C. 313 of 49-50 which ended in acquittal. The objection was rejected by the learned Magistrate who directed the case to proceed? according to law. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed.2. It is argued for the petitioner that the offences for which he was prosecuted by the police is substantially the same as the one complained of under Section 355, Penal Code which is not denied to have arisen out of the same transaction and as such the accused should not be tried again for the same offence.3. Section 403(1), Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Bhaskara Rao and anr. Vs. S. Naranappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant10; AIR1951Mys10
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The appellants were judgment-debtors 12 and 14 in the trial Court. The respondent obtained a decree in O. S. No. 90/41-42 on the file of the Munsiff of Sagar against fifteen persons including the appellants, who were then minors represented by a Court Clerk as their guardian ad litem, for recovery of Rs. 324-2-0 being the kandayam amount paid by the plaintiff towards the defendants' family, lands. In execution of that decree the respondent brought some immoveable properties of the judgment-debtors to sale and purchased them himself on 2-7-42. The sale was duly confirmed and the respondent obtained possession of the properties through Court. It appears that during the pendency of that execution case, on 2-7-42 judgment-debtors 3 and 11 had filed an application No. 1 of 42-43 before the Debt Conciliation Board, Sagar Taluk, for a settlement of the debts said to be due by their family, and on the same day and before the court sale was held they had filed in the Munsif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›