Karnataka Court August 1955 Judgments
Katappa and ors. Vs. Serappa Sakalathi Rangappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant131; AIR1955Mys131; 1955CriLJ1509
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Chitaldrug in C. C. No. 710/54 on his file convicting the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447, Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- on each of the counts and in default of payment of fine to suffer S. J. for 15 days. 2. The respondents filed a private complaint against the present petitioners on 19-5-1954 alleging that they had unauthorisedly trespassed into the two sites that they had purchased from Mananji Rangappa and had removed the fencing that had been put up and had further constructed five sheds and as such were liable to answer charges for offences under Sections 427 and 447, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, who recorded the sworn statements of the respondents, registered a case against the petitioners for offences under Sections 427 and 447, Penal Code. After recording the evidence of the petitioners and three other witnesses ...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Venkatasubbiah Vs. State of Mysore by Chief Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant137; AIR1955Mys137
Padmanabhiah, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226, Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or other direction or order quashing the order of the respondent-Government bearing G. O. No. 7012-7016/L. R. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner or, in the alternative, to sanction the full pension as ordered in G.O. No. 2722-26/L. R. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under.3. The petitioner was an Amildar in the State service. In their Order No. R. 7012-7016/L. R. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, the Government directed the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the ground that the Officer was found corrupt and guilty of misconduct. They, however, on the representations made by the petitioner directed in their Order No. R. 2722-26/L. R. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953, that the petitioner should be paid his full pension, but the Accountant-Genera...
Tag this Judgment!M. Khivaraj Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant129; AIR1955Mys129; 1955CriLJ1503
1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields, in C. C. No. 1032/55, convicting him of an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused was on 11-9-54 found with a silver sport cup valued at Rs. 20 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The accused is said to have pleaded guilty which resulted in the conviction and sentence referred to above. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed. 3. It appears to me that the proceedings in the lower Court are attended with, serious irregularities. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure laid down in Section 262, Cr.P.C. has not been followed and...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyappa and ors. Vs. Somanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant138; AIR1955Mys138; 1955CriLJ1611
ORDER1. The question raised in this case is whether the trial of Petitioners for offences alleged by the Respondent in C. C, No, 158/1954 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Bhadravati, is barred by virtue of the proceedings in C. C. No-951/53 in the same Court. In the latter case the Petitioners as well as the Respondent were accused of committing affray, an offence under Section 160, I. P. C., convicted of the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine' of Rs. 20/- each. The Respondent now wants the Petitioners to be dealt with according to law for causing him hurt. Objection was taken to this on the ground that the facts relating to both cases are common and the offences alleged though different are those committed in the course of the same transaction. The contention in the lower Court and repeated here by Sri Gular Sreenivasa Rao on behalf of the accused is that provisions of Section 403, Criminal P. C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India operate as a bar to the case being...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Chikkananjundappa Vs. D.K. Pillanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant128; AIR1955Mys128
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. Case No. 106 of 1953 on his file permitting the respondents to continue the proceedings in this case in forma pauperis.2. The respondents prayed for grant of a probate of the will and codicil alleged to have been, executed by S.M. Nanjundappa who died on 22-9-1948 in Misc. Case No. 106 of 1953 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The present petitioner who was one of the respondents in the Court below resisted the application and contended that the respondents were bound to pay the court-fee on the value of the trust properties before they could pray for grant of a probate in the case. The learned District Judge directed the respondents to pay the court-fee. The respondents then made an application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for permission to continue the proceedings in forma pauperis. They alleged in their petition that they ...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Puttiah and anr. Vs. Mysore City Municipality and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant121; AIR1955Mys121
Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. In these two petitions the respective petitioners occupying shops situated in the Devaraja Market, Mysore City, as tenants of respondent 1, Mysore City Municipality, have prayed that Section 20 of Act 30 of 1951 (the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951) be declared void and [or the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the notification of respondent 2, i.e., the State Government, bearing No. 797 dated 2-11-1951 exempting houses owned by any local authority or muzrai institution from all the provisions of the Act. 2. It may be mentioned that Section 20 of the Act authorises the State Government by notification in the Mysore Gazette to exempt any house or class of houses from all or any of the provisions of the Act and that the notification referred to above has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20.3. The petitioners' case is that they have been tenants in occupation of the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Manasarovar Agencies Vs. Governor-general in Council, Dominion of Indi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant123; AIR1955Mys123
Padmanabhiah, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 24 of 1949-50 partly decreeing the suit.2. Plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business in machinery in Bangalore. Defendant 1 in the case is the Indian Union, defendant 2 the Government of Mysore, and defendant 3 the General Manager, Mysore State Railway. The case for the plaintiff is that the firm placed two orders, one for the supply of a lathe machine, and another for a drilling machine with Messrs. Halifax Engineering Company, Baroda and Messrs. A. Mill & Company, Lahore, respectively, that the said companies consigned the said goods (the first company under invoice No. 49, and the second under invoice No. 16 for value received), that the goods so consigned have not been delivered t,o the plaintiff, that defendant 3 Railway which are responsible for the carriage and delivery of the goods have f...
Tag this Judgment!Karibasappa Vs. Jademallappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant140; AIR1955Mys140
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Shimoga in O.S. No. 22 of 1951-52 on his file holding on issue No. 7 raised in the case that the present Petitioner was not in possession of the suit schedule properties and directing him to pay an additional Court fee of Rs. 800/-.2. The Petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled 1/3 share in all the plaint schedule- properties on the ground that he was it member of the joint family along with defendants 1 to 5 and claimed delivery of possession of his share after division by metes and bounds with mesne profits and costs. He paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 100/- only under Article 11-B, Schedule II, Court Fees Act on the ground that he was in constructive possession of the suit schedule properties, being a member of the joint family.The Respondents alleged in,' their written statement that the Petitioner had wantonly inflated the value of the suit schedule properties with a view...
Tag this Judgment!AswaThe Vs. S. Shamiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant143; AIR1955Mys143
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in O. S. No. 37/54 on his file holding that the petitioner was liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of his share in the suit schedule properties.2. The present petitioner represented by his guardian Parvathamma filed a suit against the respondents for partition and possession of his 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties valued at Rs. 75,000/- in all. The petitioner alleged in his plaint that he was adopted by Parvathamma to her husband Chandrasekhariah about 2 or 3 months prior to the date of the suit and as such was a member of the joint family with the defendants and was entitled to claim and get his 1/3 share in all the suit schedule properties which were the joint family properties.The petitioner alleged that he was in constructive possession of the suit schedule properties along with the respondents and as such was entitled to pay a fixed court-fee unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›