Karnataka Court February 1951 Judgments
The Dominion of India Vs. Baichu Ramiah Chetty and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant68; AIR1951Mys68
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J. 1. This petn. is to revise the judgment & decree in S. C. No. 83 of 1948-49 on the file of the learned Dist. J Civil Station, Bangalore. The facts of the case in brief ate as under : Six cases alleged to contain 'Aspro' bundles were booked on 1-8-1947 with M. S. & M. Rys. owned & managed by the petnr-deft. under invoice No 4165 Ex Salt Gotaurs Madras to Bangalore Cantonment with Risk Note Form A, by Messrs. J. L. Morrison Jones, India, Ltd., Madras to the pltf. When the goods were offered for delivery on 6-8-1947 to the pltf. one case was found damaged & when all the cases were opened, the contents of the consignment were said to have been short by Hi bundles of 'Aspro' of the value of Rs. 31-7-0 according to the pltf. The pltf. thereupon appears to have insisted on obtaining open delivery of the goods & the defts. agreed to do so without prejudice to their legal position, which reservation, it is averred, was not accepted by the pltf. Ultimately, when the goods...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subbaraya and anr. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant8; AIR1952Mys8
ORDER1. The two petnrs. & their nephew were tried by the Special First Class Mag. Sagar, on charges framed under Clauses 3, 5 & 6, Movement of Timber (Control) Order 1948, for having transported timber from the Soppinabetta forest for being in possession of the said timber & for having established a saw-pit without a permit for any of these on 30-10-1649. The petnrs. & their nephew, the 3rd accused, were all acquitted of the charge relating to the establishment of the saw-pit without a permit but convicted for contravention of Clause 3 relating to unauthorised transport & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. They were also found guilty of being in possession of timber without a permit necessary under Clause 5 & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. On appeal the nephew was acquitted of the offences under Clauses 3 & 5 but the conviction of petnrs. under Clause 3 alone was set inside & that under Clause 5 confirmed. It is contended that this is erroneous. Clause 5 of the Order which alo...
Tag this Judgment!Tondala Muniswamappa Vs. Nanjundachari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant56; AIR1952Mys56; (1951)19MysLJ35
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the Appellant in favour of Respondent with respect to a house. On the same day the agreement was executed, the said property was purchased by the Appellant from the Respondent under a registered sale deed. The argument is unregistered and provides that on payment of Rs. 200/- (which is also the consideration for the sale) with interest on Rs. 150/- within a period of three years by the Respondent the Appellant should re-convey the property to the former. The Respondent has after depositing the amount applied for re-conveyance and delivery at the property. The pleas put forward by the Appellant were that there was no valid tender of the amount prior to suit and that the agreement was nominal. The trial Court negatived both these and decreed the suit. At the hearing of the appeal preferred by the Appellant against this, objection to the maintainability of the suit was newly r...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Vedantha Iyengar Vs. H.S. Marigowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant127; AIR1951Mys127
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chickmagalur passed in Cr. R. P. No. 3 of 1950-51.2. The facts leading to the case, briefly stated, are as under: One Marigowda filed a complaint on 30-12-1949 before the District Magistrate for assault in an attempt to extract a bribe of Rs. 300/-against a police constable and a Sub-Inspector, the petitioner before this Court. The District Magistrate took cognizance of the case and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. As per the request in para 12 of the complaint petition to direct the medical authorities to examine the complainant as they were alleged to have declined to issue a medical certificate, a direction was sent to examine the complainant which was done on 30-12-1949 and a medical certificate regarding the injuries said to have been sustained by the complainant was produced before the District Magistrate on 3-1-1960. Thereupon, the District Magistrate acting under S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›