Karnataka Court July 1955 Judgments
Damodara Sastry Vs. Nilgiri Sanjiviah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant141; AIR1955Mys141
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate judge, Bangalore, dismissing his application, I.A. No. VI, filed under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. praying for permission to amend his written statement in O.S. No. 159/ 52-53.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the lower Court. Plaintiff's suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the allegation that the defendant is a tenant. The defendant, while admitting his being in possession of the suit premises, has contended that he is not a tenant under the plaintiff but under some other person. Later on, the defendant filed an application as per I.A. No. VI praying for permission to amend his written statement by adding a new plea that he is not in possession of the premises since 10-7-1051 and that one ...
Tag this Judgment!Devaralinga Gowda and anr. Vs. Puttaswamy Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant133; AIR1955Mys133
1. The question to be considered is whether the appellants who are minors are disentitled to disposal of the appeal filed in the Court of the District Judge on merits as there was delay in filing it. The delay is undisputed and considerable. If the appellants were adults, I would have readily upheld the order, of the learned District Judge refusing to condone it. The appellants are children below the age of ten. They were impleaded as sons and legal representatives of Rame Gowda who died while the suit was pending in the trial Court and their mother was appointed as their guardian ad litem. The subject-matter of the suit was a garden valued at more than Rs. 3000 purchased by Rame Gowda from the father of the plaintiffs, The sale was impeached by the plaintiffs and their contention that the sale did not affect their shares in the property was allowed. It was against this decision that the appeal was filed by the widow of Rame Gowda on behalf of her sons.2. The reason alleged for the del...
Tag this Judgment!Munithayamma and anr. Vs. Muddobalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant135; AIR1955Mys135; 1955CriLJ1512
ORDERPadmanabhiah, J.1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the Petitioners--Accused 1 and 2 praying that the charge framed against them under Section 500 I. P. C., in C. C. No. 2555 of 1953 on the file of the First Magistrate, Bangalore, may be quashed.2. The petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in C. C. 2555 of 1953 on the file of the First Magistrate, Bangalore. The accused stand charged for an offence under Section 500-I. P. C. The case of the complainant is that in a suit filed by petitioner 1 in O. S. 348 of 1953 on the file of the Munsiff, Chickballapur against her brothers and others, she has made and published certain imputations concerning the respondent-complainant, that the said allegations are false and malicious and per se defamatory, that petitioner 2 is the Advocate who appeared for petitioner 1 and drafted the plaint for her, that there is ill will between the accused and the respondent, that the said imputations were made maliciously just...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkataramiah Vs. Channiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant144; AIR1955Mys144; 1955CriLJ1613
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Dodballapur in C.C. No. 233/54 on his file directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 5/- to each of the three respondents after acquitting them in the case.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 352 of the Penal Code into the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Dodballapur and the same was registered as C. C. No. 233/54. The respondents who were served with summons appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty to the charge that was read over and explained to them. The complainant and two witnesses were examined and the case for the petitioner was closed.The respondents examined two witnesses on their behalf and closed their case. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the respondents for any of the offences alleged against them and acquitted...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Mullangi Soolappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant151; AIR1955Mys151; 1955CriLJ1614; [1956]7STC22(Kar)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Madras in the High Court of Madras against the judgment dated 14-2-1953 in C. A. 31/53 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bellary, acquitting the accused in reversal of the decision of the Additional District Munsiff cum First Class Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 97/52 convicting the respondent of offences punishable under S. 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, as he failed to pay sales tax of Rs. 3,264-0-6 under the final assessment for the year 1950-51 and also sales tax of Rs. 3,531/- under the provisional assessment for the year 1951-52 on or before the specified date.In pursuance of Section 41(2) of the Andhra State Act, 1953, the Chief Justice of Madras transferred the appeal to the High Court of Mysore.2. In the trial Court, the accused contended that he had not been duly served with copies of the notices in respect of the final and provisional assessments in question in accordance w...
Tag this Judgment!Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›