Karnataka Court September 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D.M. Revanasiddaiah Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant85; AIR1952Mys85
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The Petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He has stated in his affidavit that he was arrested by the Police of Davangere, apparently in connection with some criminal case, on 22-1-51 and remanded to Police custody. He was granted bail by the First Class Magistrate who later on cancelled it on the application of the Public Prosecutor. He was then committed and took his trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimoga Division, in Chitaldrug Sessions Case No. 8/50-51. The Sessions Judge released him on bail on 24-2-51, and on 25-2-51 he was rearrested by the Police of Davangere. He was ultimately acquitted in the Sessions case on 8-3-51. He was served on 8-3-51 with a copy of an order of detention dated 5-3-51 together with grounds of detention and, subsequently, on 12-3-51 with the details of grounds for detention.2. The order of detention which ...
Lakkappa Vs. Thimmappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant48; AIR1953Mys48; (1953)31MysLJ90
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decision passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tumkur in R. A. No. 67 of 48-49 setting aside the order in Misc. Case No. 10 of 48-49 on the file of the Munsiff of Tiptur. The appellant-petitioner is a judgment-debtor in Ex. Case No. 217 of 45-46 who filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90 in Misc. Case No. 10 of 48-49 referred to above. It is alleged in the application that the mortgage decree obtained against him was executed at the instance of the respondent as assignee of the original decree-holder. The applicant was not aware of the assignment and was not served with a notice. It is also alleged in the application that the assignee decree-holder has fraudulently got the properties of the applicant-judgment-debtor sold, that he was not served with any sale notice, that there was no proclamation of the sale and that the sale is invalid in law and liable to be set aside. This is particularly so it is contended, as apart from two-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›