Karnataka Court February 1953 Judgments
Muniappa and ors. Vs. Subrahmanyaswaraswami Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant52; AIR1954Mys52; ILR1954KAR95
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order under the Insolvency Act passed by the learned District Judge setting aside the dismissal of two petitions I. A. Nos. IV and V in I. C. 9/36-37 of Chickballapur Munsiff's Court. That case arose on a petition by two creditors for their debtor Settappa and his two sons being adjudged insolvents. The petition was dismissed as against the sons but Settappa was adjudged Insolvent on 3-9-40 fixing a period of 6 months for discharge. The creditors had to prove the debts due to them toy 25-10-40 but only on 14-12-45 affidavits were filed by petitioners as regards the amounts due to them. An order for the Receiver taking possession of the insolvent's properties was passed on 7-3-41 but this was recalled on 9-11-45 by stating that 'the vesting order is returned'. Later this adjudication itself was annulled on 21-12-45 and subsequently the two applications I. As. IV and V were filed for the administration of the properties. The...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Brahmiah and ors. Vs. B. Narayanaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Kant110; AIR1953Mys110
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. The petitioners are convicted under Section 68, the Mysore TradeMarks Act, 1944 for having falsely published a Trade Mark as 'registered' when it was not so registered, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- each, by the First Class Magistrate, Civil Area, Bangalore.2. A concern run by the petitioners under the name and style of 'Raja Soap Factory', manufacturing washing soaps in Mysore City put up goods in the market for sale. The complainant indented in August 1950 for the supply of soaps and found on the packages supplied trade labels of the pattern of Ex. P-3 displayed thus :'Raja Soap FactoryMysoreRegisteredTrade 303 MarkRegistered Trade Mark' 303 303 The goods with such representation areproved to have been delivered at the addressof the complainant in the Civil Area on orabout 4-9-1950. The case for the prosecutionis that the representation of the said TradeMark as registered is false and unauthorisedand the petitioners by such publication havemade themselv...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ramgopal Vs. H. Misrilal and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Kant127; AIR1953Mys127
ORDER1. The petitioner is employed as the Sales Manager in George Oakes Ltd., a private firm dealing in motors and other accessories in Bangalore City. In pursuance of a decree obtained against him, the respondent sought to attach the salary of the petitioner and the attachment warrant was served on his employer on 7-10-1952. It is contended that no pay was due on that date and that the salary that may become due on a future date to person in private employment cannot be attached in advance under Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P. C. This argument is not without force.2. Order 21, Rule 43 refers to the attachment of salary or allowances of a servant of the Crown or of a Railway Company or of any Local Authority. Nowhere in that Rule is any reference made to the mode of attachment of the salary due from a private firm. It is undoubted that under Section 60, Civil P. C. Clause (i) the exemption from attachment of salary to the extent of first hundred rupees and one half of the remainder is comm...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rajeswariamma Vs. K.M. Viswanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant31; AIR1954Mys31
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. This is a revision petition which has been filed against the order of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, dismissing the petitioner's application for maintenance against her husband under section 488, Criminal P. C. The respondent though served is absent and unrepresented.2. I think this is a clear case in which the respondent is bound to give maintenance to the petitioner. Admittedly the respondent has been writing letters to the petitioner's brother asking for money. The learned Magistrate has tried to make some distinction between requests for money and demands for the same which is really of no substance where the person asking is a son-in-law of the family who is postponing taking his wife to live with him. In Ex. p-6 the respondent has 'cautioned' the petitioner's brothers not to be 'beggarly' and 'ridiculous' when arranging for nuptials and that if they do not spend 'a few hundreds' 'the consequences will be very undesirable'. In Ex. p-8 he has written a re...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Hanumantha Setty Vs. H.S. Anantiah Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Kant106; AIR1953Mys106
ORDER1. On an application I. A. No. VII filed by the defendant under Rule 20 of the Rules under the Legal Practitioners Act in Original Suit No. 8 of 1950-51 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chitaldroog, the sum of Rs. 25/- mentioned in the decree as being payable to defendant towards lawyer's fee is ordered to be amended by raising it to the ad valorem fee on Rs. 4500/-. It is conceded that there is no variance between the judgment and the decree that Rs. 25/- was definitely fixed as Advocate's lee in the judgment by the predecessor of the Judge who has now made the order. The provision of law under which the application is filed cannot justify the amendment as it only refers to the mode in which the fee has to be assessed ordinarily, without affecting the power of the court to disallow or reduce the amount if it thinks fit. This as well as the conditions under which the decree once drawn up may be altered or amended are to be gathered from the provisions of the Code of Civil Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Hutcheeregowda and ors. Vs. Sanjeevagowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant167; AIR1954Mys167
1. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed to repel the terms of a compromise entered in O. S. 333/46-47 and to declare the decree passed therein as null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the said decision was confirmed in the first appeal.2. O. S. 333/46-47 was filed by defendants 1 to 3 of this suit, against the plaintiff and defendant 4 (pro forma) for declaration that the alienation of the properties made by their father was not binding on their interests. During the progress of the suit, a compromise was entered into under the terms of which the defendants Obtained certain portions of the properties involved in that suit. The compromise petition was signed by defendant 4 who was present in Court and the lawyer (Mr. H. Narayana Rao) who was appearing for all the defendants in that suit figned on their behalf. The ground upon which the suit is filed is that the compromise was entered into without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that it was the result of f...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhaiah Vs. Chikkathimmaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant115; AIR1954Mys115; (1955)33MysLJ42
1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The defendant is the son of one Dodda Thimmian who was a member of Hindu Joint family with him and who is now dead. During his lifetime, he had sold to the plaintiff a small piece of land measuring about an acre described in the A schedule to the plaint (which will be referred to hereafter as the suit land) and had put him in possession. After his death the defendant and another younger brother of his, who is also now dead, tried to disturb the plaintiff's possession and he therefore brought a suit in O.S. No. 3 of 42-43 on the file of the Munsif, Tumkur, against them for a permanent injunction. It was held in that suit that the plaintiff was entitled to retain possession of the suit land and that Dodda Thimmiah's sons might get their shares divided arid separated by a suit of their own for partition if the alienation by their father was found not binding on them. Accordingly they filed a suit O.S. No. 208/44-45 against the plaintiff for pa...
Tag this Judgment!Tharumal Bhajandas Vs. K. Narasimhiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant114; AIR1954Mys114; ILR1953KAR662
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The petitioner in these two cases is the same. He sued the respondent for recovery of amounts due under two on demand promissory notes, and, in the course of one of the suits, applied for attachment before judgment of money due to the defendant under a bill tendered to the Executive Engineer, Buildings Division, Bangalore. No money, however, was received in Court or even found to be actually payable. The suits ended in decrees against the defendant and the application filed by the defendant for payment of compensation on account of the attachment being wrongful was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the defendant, the decrees of the trial Court as regards the amounts payable under the pronotes were confirmed, but compensation of Rs. 250/- was allowed to the defendant on the view that the attachment was obtained on insufficient grounds. The learned Judge also directed the plaintiff to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on the ground that he, as a money-lender, has not...
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Vs. Puttalakshamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant118; AIR1954Mys118
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in B.A. No. 57/49-50 confirming those of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 178 of 47-48.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in the case. He filed a suit for redemption of the property mortgaged by his mother as his guardian for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. Out of this sum, it is not disputed, a sum of Rs. 700/- was paid for discharging the prior encumbrances created by the plaintiff's deceased father and a sum of Rs. 181/-was required for meeting funeral expenses of his deceased father. Plaintiff admits that there was legal necessity to this extent. Out of the balance of about Rs. 1619/- plaintiff's mother purchased a house for a sum of Rs. 1500/- and it is contended that even this house has been subsequently sold away for Rs. 3500/- and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay anything more than what was required for the funeral expenses and to discharge the debts contracted by his f...
Tag this Judgment!C.D. Deviah and anr. Vs. Karigowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant128; AIR1954Mys128
1. The plaintiff is the adoptive son of one Davegowda who had three younger brothers Halligowda, the natural father of the plaintiff, Annegowda and defendant 1 Karigowda. He died about 10 years before suit. Thereafter the plaintiff and his uncles were living together as member's of a joint Hindu family. The family is said to have owned moveable and immoveable properties described in the schedule to the plaint. Halligowda and Annegowda are said to have gone away from the joint family recently and had no right, title and interest in the suit properties. Defendant 1 had refused to give a share to the plaintiff and the suit has been brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule properties and for partition and possession of the same. Defendant 2 was later on added as a supplemental defendant and she is the adoptive mother of the plaintiff. She has joined the plaintiff in this appeal. 2. Defendant 1 pleaded that the plaintiff had been marrie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›