Karnataka Court March 1951 Judgments
V. Sampangiramaiah Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant53; AIR1952Mys53
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in C. C. No. 583 of 49-50 on the file of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal case permitting the prosecution to adduce additional evidence as per particulars to be furnished by them.2. The undisputed facts from which this revision arises are as follows. -- The accused is a retail dealer in kerosene oil having his shop in New Tharagupet, Bangalore City. The police attached to the Anti Corruption Department having obtained information that the accused was selling kerosene oil at black-market rates, arranged a trap-purchase by sending P. W. 8 with two ten rupee marked currency notes. The accused is said to have sold two tins of kerosene oil for Rs. 19/-while the control rate is only Rs. 7/-. Soon after the purchase, the police seized the articles. The accused while admitting the sale protested that the tins contained diesel oil and not kerosene oil. There was thus dispute about...
Tag this Judgment!Paliah Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant55; AIR1952Mys55; (1952)30MysLJ97
ORDER1. The Police of Parasurampur, Chitaldrug District, prosecuted the petitioner under Rule 17(1) read with Rule 19 of the Articles of Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order 1949 framed under Rr. 75 and 81 of the Defence of India Rules as applied to Mysore and continued by the Supplies, Service.? and Miscellaneous Provisions Act XX of 1947 for securing and maintaining food supplies. On 20-1-1950, the petitioner (accused) is said to have been driving a double bullock cart with seven bags of paddy in it without a permit to transport the paddy. The paddy was seized and delivered to the Government Depot at the control rate and the price fetched was deposited; the cart and bullocks were also taken possession of by the Police. A charge-sheet was placed before the Special First Class Magistrate, Chitaldrug. The accused admitted the circumstances and pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. In addition, the learned Magistrate made an order directing that the price ...
Tag this Judgment!Anoopchand Revashanker Metha Vs. Amerchand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant101; AIR1951Mys101
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. This is a deft's. appln. to revise the judgment & decree in a suit filed by the resp. Under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for the recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property on the ground that the dispossession was otherwise than in due course of law.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the suit are as under: The pltf. was a tenant in occupation under the deft. For the arrears of rent due, the deft, obtained a decree in the Ct. of Small Causes & in execution thereof obtained an order for attaching the moveables belonging to the pltf. by breaking open the look of the premises in the occupation of the pltf. The warrant of attachment of moveables was duly executed by the Amin who, in addition to the articles attached, is said to have given vacant possession of the premises to the deft, under a surety bond obliging the deft, to comply with the further orders of the Ct. The pltf's appln. to the Ct. of Small Causes for restitution of possession is...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminaranappa and anr. Vs. Mysore Provincial Co-operative Apex Bank ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Kant7; AIR1954Mys7
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to Jodi Kittane village which is said to contain 28 virtues owned by 51 sharers. Defendant 1 is the holder of 1 1/2 virtues in the said village. The plaintiff in the suit, from which this appeal arises, claims to have purchased the entire jodi village in an auction sale held by Government for arrears of revenue due on the holding for the year 1933-34. The suit was filed for possession of items 1 to 9 of the suit schedule properties which are alleged to be in the possession and enjoyment at defendant 1. Defendant 1 had, prior to the revenue sale, granted items 2 to 9 to defendant 2 on a permanent lease. The plaintiff has alternatively claimed a decree for all the rights of defendant 1 in items 2 to 9 in addition to actual possession of item 1. An additional claim for mesne profits is also laid in the suit. The plea of defendant 1 is, in main, that the suit properties belonged to her permanent kadim tenancy rights and the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Secretary to Government of Mysore Vs. A. Rama Chetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant65; AIR1953Mys65
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff is a cloth merchant at Mysore; and his suit against the Mysore Railways for recovery of the value of articles consigned by him, for Interest & notice charges was dismissed with costs by the Munsiff of Mysore. That judgment was reversed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, and the defendants have filed this second appeal.2. It is admitted by the railways that a bundle of cloth was consigned on 12-3-1945 to the plaintiff from Chamarajanagar, that it was received at the Mysore city railway station and that it was stolen away from there & could not therefore be delivered to the plaintiff. Its value has also been found by both the lower Courts to be Rs. 1,407-1-0. The learned Munsiff was of the view that the plaintiff has not made out that the loss of the parcel was due to want of care or diligence on the part of the railway administration, but the learned Subordinate Judge did not agree with him and observed that, according to the evidence on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anke Gowda Vs. Fatima Khatum and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant124; AIR1951Mys124
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by judgment-debtor 7 against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge. Bangalore, con-firming that of the Munsiff, Ramanagaram, rejecting an application made by him under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts leading up to the petition are: four items of immovable property were brought to sale by the decree-holders in execution of their mortgage decree. The petitioner who was an alienee of item l was defendant 7 in the case. All the four items were ordered to be sold on 17-5 1949. Before the sale the petitioner filed an application and obtained an order that items 2 to 4 of the mortgaged properties might be sold in the first instance and for the balance of the decree amount, if any, item l in which he was interested might then be sold. Accordingly on the same day items 2 to 4 were sold in the first instance for Rs. 320 in the aggregate and item 1 was sold later for Rs. 410. The amount mentioned in t...
Tag this Judgment!L.S. Raju Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant106; AIR1951Mys106
Mallappa, J. 1. This is a revn. petn. against the order in C. C. No. 2519 of 50-51 on the file of the City Mag. Bangalore, refusing to furnish the petnr. with a copy of the entries in Col. No. 6 of the charge-sheet placed against him.2. The point has come up before this Ct. for consideration several times, & if it has come up before a Bench for consideration, it is because after the amendment of Section 173, Cr. P. C., the opinions expressed in some unreported cases on this aspect of the matter are not uniform & it is desirable to lay down a definite view on this question which often arises in the criminal Cts. Section 178 lays down that the Police report under that section must be in the form prescribed by the Govt. setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case & stating whether the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody, or has been released on his bond. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Mysore Vs. Mahantha Devaru
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant65; AIR1951Mys65; (1952)30MysLJ194
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Mysore under Section 417, Criminal P. C. against the judgment in C. C. no. 749 of 49.50 of the Special First Class Mag. of Nanjangud. The reap, was prosecuted for an offence under Rule 81 4), Defence of India Rules read with Clause (19) of the Articles of Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order, 1949, for having unauthoredly sold foodgrains.2. The possession & sale of 'Save' is the food-grain concerned in the offence. The Mag on evidence, found that the accused sold 'Save' & in addition, bad in his possession 600 seers of the commodity in two gunny bags kept for sale in the shop & 10 bags of 'Save' were found to have been stored inside the house attached to the shop which was seized by the Police. The accused pleaded that he has not committed any offence either by possession or by sale of 'Save'. 'Save' is not one of the food-grains mentioned in the Harvest Order of 1949 as it stood on 26-1-1950; but it was introduced therein by an order...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Rama Iyer and ors. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant70; AIR1951Mys70; [1951]2STC122(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 164 is the proprietor of a Coffee Club and Catering Establishment at Horakote who has been assessed to a tax of Rs. 156 on the turnover of his business estimated at Rs. 10,000 a year. The levy is stated to be provisional and a demand notice was served on him on 26th March, 1949. He failed to pay the assessment though the time prescribed for payment had expired. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 165 is a Soda Manufacturer and Bakery Merchant at Horakote. He was also provisionally assessed to a tax of Rs. 156 for the year 1948-49 on the turnover of his business. A demand notice was served upon him and he failed to pay the tax within the time allowed. Both of them were prosecuted under Section 20(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. In both the cases, the receipt of the notice is admitted and the plea raised is 'not guilty'. They have challenged the validity of the tax. A preliminary objection was raised by the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Basappa and anr. Vs. Patel Marule Gowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant102; AIR1951Mys102
1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by applts. for recovery of Rs. 727-5-6 from respa. under an on-demand-promissory note. The consideration for the pronote marked Ex. I is mentioned as Rs. 682 which the resps. owed in respect of transactions carried on with the applts. A sum of RS.. 264-7-0 realised by sale of areca left with the applts. by the resps. was deducted from the debt due under Ex. I & the amount claimed is alleged to be the balance due. The execution of the pronote & consideration therefor are admitted, but liability is disputed on the ground that the areca was worth more than the amount mentioned in the plaint & that there is a material alteration of the instrument. The trial Ct. negatived both these pleas & decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defts. the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit with costs.2. The contention as regards the value of the areca cannot be properly advanced to avoid liability as it is not alleged that the pltfs. acted contrary to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »