Karnataka Court November 1952 Judgments
Commander, Bangalore Area and anr. Vs. Armugam Nagarthnam and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant46; AIR1954Mys46; ILR1953KAR480
Mallappa, J.1. In these three appeals the respondents are Contractors who entered into contracts with the Military Department for the construction of what are known as 'Hutted Ancillaries' on a lump sum basis. Letters dated 27-4-43 were addressed to them enclosing the tender documents and they were instructed to submit their tenders within 11 A. M. on 1-8-43. In para. 2(b) of the letter marked Ext. A the attention of the contractors was drawn to the fact that 'the Plinth areas inserted in Col. 15 or Schedule B, are rounded off to the nearest foot' and that it should be understood that the amounts mentioned in Col. 19 against each item (except in the case of provincial items) are fixed amounts and shall not be varied and that the percentage tendered will be deemed to be above or below these amounts. While there is hardly any doubt that the contracts were therefore on a lump sum basis it will be noticed that in Schedule D in which the rates for pricing variations and additions are mentio...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Chikka Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Nama Ramaswami Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant42; AIR1954Mys42; ILR1953KAR470; (1954)32MysLJ209
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. These six Regular Appeals and two Second Appeals relate to as many suits filed by one Nama Ramaswamy Setty in the Court of the Munsiff of Kolar for ejectment and enhanced rents by way of damages for use and occupation till possession of the premises concerned in each of them is delivered by their respective tenants who are defendants in those suits. All those suits were decreed by two different Munsiffs who heard them, Messrs. Hanumanthegowda and Thimmapparaj Urs. On appeals in Regular Appeals Nos. 88 and 89 of 47-13 two of the earlier of these judgments in Original suits Nos. 135 and 136 of 46-47 were reversed by the Subordinate Judge of Kolar. The two Second Appeals by the plaintiff arise out of a common judgment in those two appeals. Six regular appeals which were filed against the judgments in the other six suits were got transferred to this Court and have been heard as Regular Appeals in this Court. They can all be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Halappa Gowda Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant91; AIR1953Mys91; ILR1953KAR197; (1954)32MysLJ201
ORDER1. The Special First Class Magistrate, Sagar, has made an order in Crl. Misc. 3/51-52directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the two accused who were concerned in C. C. 754/51-52 on his file and whom he acquitted of a charge under Section 4 (1) (a) (3), Mysore Prohibition Act. The petitioner is a Patel of the village where the alleged offence is said to have taken place and it is not disputed that he gave information to the Police of Sagar who placed a charge-sheet against the accused persons and that the case ultimately ended in favour of the accused.2. Mr. K. Puttaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends before me that the learned Magistrate erred in awarding compensation against the petitioner. The petitioner, it is urged, was a Police Patel and reliance is placed on Village Manual, Vol. 1, (1914) Edn.), pp. 68 to 81, Chapter III, where his duties are denned by rules. Under Rule 15 (b) it is his duty to report to nearest police station the commission within t...
Tag this Judgment!Shivapadegowda and anr. Vs. Anniahchar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant142; AIR1954Mys142
Mallappa, J.1. The property in respect of which disputes between the parties in this case arose belonged to one Chick Bommiah. He executed on 7-7-11 the original of Ext. G in favour of defendant 2 Chikmalliah concerning his properties, which I may here mention had been hypothecated by him to one Shiyaram Singh sometime before the execution of tins document. In pursuance of this document Chickmalliah executed the sale deeds exts. L, BBB, MM and MMM dated 28-8-41, 28-10-41, 4-11-41 and 3-9-42 respectively in order to discharge debts due by Chick Bommiah, as mentioned in Ext. G. To all these documents Chick Bommiah's attestation as evidence of his consent has been taken. In execution of a decree obtained by defendants 4 and 5 against the second defendant, all the properties of Chick Bommiah mentioned in Ext. G were attached and the suit property which is a dry garden land was purchased by the decree-holders as per sale certificate Ext. P. Plaintiff respondent has purchased the suit proper...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Cum Travancore-cochin, Bangalore Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant73; AIR1953Mys73
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore cum Travancore-Cochin, Bangalore, which was formerly made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 66 (1), Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 as amended by Section 92, Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1939 to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. That reference was heard on 4-8-1948 by Rajamannar C.J. and Yaha Ali J. who directed the return of the records in the case to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as it was represented to them that the Madras High Court had ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with the reference in view of the retrocession of the C. & M. Station, Bangalore, wherefrom the reference arose, to the Government of Mysore.2. The assessees, who are respondents before us, are a firm of Engineering Contractors who had their office within the Mysore State limits. During the conferred account year ending March 1942 they did some building construction work for a war camp in Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Abdul Badsha Saheb and anr. Vs. Century Wood Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant33; AIR1954Mys33; ILR1953KAR427
1. The plaintiffs styling themselves as K.T.A. Rasheed & Coy.' by partners K.T. Abdul Badsha Saheb and K.T. Abdul Rasheed filed a suit against the defendant-respondent for recovery of some money due in connection with their having supplied some poles. Among other grounds the defendant intended that the firm of the plaintiffs was not registered in the books of the Registrar of Firms as required under the Partnership Act and that the suit is, therefore, not maintainable under Section 69(2), Partnership Act. The plaintiffs on the other hand contend that they are the sole-proprietors of the business which is not a firm in the strictest sense of the word and that though their company is not registered the suit filed by them is tenable. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs' company is a firm and that it ought to have been got registered and as the same is not registered the suit is not maintainable.2. The main point for consideration is whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Winifred Colaco and ors. Vs. Nanjappa Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant84; AIR1953Mys84; ILR1953KAR419; (1954)32MysLJ191
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff whose age is given as 26 years in the plaint brought a suit in 'forma pauperis' on 30-11-1946 against one Puttaswamygowda, defendant 1, who is now dead and whose legal representatives are defendants 1 (a) to 1 (c) and against defendants 2 to 4, the minor son and daughter and widow respectively, of one William Colaco, who is now dead. His case was that the suit properties which consist of some wet and dry lands and a coffee garden which belonged to him had been, wrongfully and without any legal necessity or benefit accruing to him, sold away during his minority, by defendant 1, to the deceased William Colaco; and that as that sale was not binding on him, he was entitled to recover their possession from defendants 2 to 4 with mesne profits. He had lost both his parents when he was only 7 or 8 years old and his paternal grand-mother one Kenchamma was bringing him up. As she was very old she had executed a deed of trust in favour of defendant I, her son-i...
Tag this Judgment!Lucy Vs. Francis Furtado and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant86; AIR1954Mys86; ILR1953KAR416
1. These two appeals have been filed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge dismissing R. A. 55 and 56 of 50-51 on the file of his Court and refusing to condone the delay of a few days in filing these appeals.2. The case of the appellant is that she Had an abortion and severe haemorrhage on 9-5-50 and was not able to move about till a day prior to 24-5-50 on which day these appeals were filed. The appeals ought to have been filed on 15-5-50 and the application was for condonation of delay of nine days under the circumstances referred to above. That the appellant had an abortion on 9-5-50 and that consequently she suffered from severe hemorrhage and was not able to move about for a fortnight is supported by the evidence of a respectable witness Mrs. Bhaghyamma Samuel Lady Assistant Surgeon at Jog. There is absolutely no reason suggested in her cross-examination to show that she is interested in swearing to what is not true. The learned Subordinate Judge has given a flimsy re...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Gowda and ors. Vs. Doddamane Gurupadappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant39; AIR1954Mys39; ILR1953KAR408; (1954)32MysLJ184
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits of a garden land has been party decreed by the District Judge, Shimoga and defendants 1 to 4 and 6 have appealed. Defendant 5 has been formally impleaded as respondent 2 and the plaintiff is respondent 1. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objections regarding the 4 share of the garden which has not been decreed in his favour.2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to a joint Hindu family of one Benavannagowda Gowda and his three undivided brothers. For failure to pay land revenue it was forfeited to Government in or about the year 1937, but it could not be disposed of in revenue auction for want of bidders and it was resumed or taken under Government 'phada'; subsequently as Benavanna-Gowda paid up all the dues it was granted to him. For some monies due by him and his brothers the plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 27 of 35-36 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Shimog...
Tag this Judgment!Lingegowda and ors. Vs. Chikka Nilegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant131; AIR1953Mys131; ILR1953KAR315
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Mysore in Criminal Misc. 2 of 51-52 holding that the first party-respondent is in possession of the property in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 Criminal P. C. had been instituted and directing the Receiver to put him in possession of the property so that he might be in possession till he is evicted therefrom in due course of law.2. The property in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 were instituted by the Bannur Police at the instance of respondent 1 has been described as being bounded on the east by the lands belonging to the second party (petnrs.), West, land belonging to Hampapaur Maszid, on the north by a land of Lingappa and others and on the south by a Government lane. It will be noticed that the boundaries on three sides are clear, but on the eastern side it is difficult to say what the boundary line is, as to the east of the land in dispute is the land of the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »