Karnataka Court October 1956 Judgments
Dodda Revanna and ors. Vs. T.V. Narayana Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant43; AIR1957Mys43; 1957CriLJ467; ILR1956KAR369
ORDER1. In this revision petition the Petitioners (II Party) in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court below challenge the correctness of the order declaring that the Respondent ( I Party) was in possession. The learned Magistrate has dealt with the documents produced by either side in support of its case as also the affidavits of various persons filed on behalf of the parties. He has come to the conclusion that the affidavits and the documentary evidence indicate that the I Parly has been in possession of the site in question.2. It is urged for the Petitioners that their documents show that they were in possession earlier, but the learned Magistrate holds that those documents arc not shown to pertain to the disputed site, while the documents filed on behalf of the I Party give the original khaneshmari number borne by the site and the subsequent number also. These are questions of fact and the view of the lower Court cannot be called in question in...
Tag this Judgment!Davanagere Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC793(Kar)
Sreenivasa Rao, J. 1. This writ petition challenging the legality of the levy of sales tax from the petitioner mills in respect of the transactions in the canteen run by the mills has arisen under the following circumstances : 2. The Sales Tax Officer, Chitaldrug, assessed the petitioner to sales tax during the quarters ending June, 1952, September, 1952, March, 1953 and June, 1953, in respect of the sales effected in the canteen attached to the mills. The assessee preferred a review petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mysore, that the sales in the canteen did not represent business done by the mills in the course of their trade or business. This contention was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and he directed the Sales Tax Officer to reduce the demand to a corresponding extent. The Commissioner of Sales Tax sought suo motu to revise the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and notified the assessee. After hearing the assessee the Commissioner took the view that the levy...
Tag this Judgment!Doddanarasegowda and ors. Vs. Kalamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant35; AIR1957Mys35; (1957)35MysLJ101
1. This appeal is against the decree for partition and other connected reliefs obtained by a mother against her son and an alienee from the son. The alienee who was the second defendant in the suit has filed this appeal. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal the appellant i.e., the alienee (defendant 2) and the alienor respondent 2 (defendant 1) died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. Defendant 1 died leaving his mother, plaintiff (respondent 1) and his widow surviving him. Hence the plaintiff (respondent 1) represents herself and is also one of the legal representatives of her son in this appeal.2. The property described in the plaint schedule consists of six items of land and a house. The plaintiff's case was that they were the joint family property of her husband find her son, that on the death of her husband her son became the sole surviving coparcener and that she became entitled to a share. This, as originally claimed in the plaint, was a one-fourth sha...
Tag this Judgment!M. Pavalappa Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant61; AIR1957Mys61; 1957CriLJ874
ORDER1. In this petition the accused challenges the legality of his commitment under Section 207-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial by the Court of Session for an offence under Section 333, I. P. C. The ground urged is that such a commitment without taking the evidence of persons alleged to be witnesses to the actual commission of the offence is contrary to the provisions of Section 207-A (4). It is net disputed by the prosecution that there are such witnesses.It is seen that the prosecuting Inspector submitted to the Court that he did not intend to examine any eye-witnesses in the committal Court, that thereupon the accused filed an application that persons cited as eye-witnesses may be summoned and examined and that the Magistrate refused the request. The accused took up the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to summon the eye-witnesses in revision to this Court in Criminal R. P. 83/56 and this Court dismissed, that petition on the ground that it was not necessary to...
Tag this Judgment!ZahiruddIn Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant64; AIR1957Mys64; 1957CriLJ984
Sreenivasa Rao, J. 1. The Petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 11 (1) read with Section 45 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, on the ground that he was found carrying on business in his cycle shop on a declared weekly holiday. He has filed this writ petition for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that the said provision, i.e., Section 11 (l) of the Act is wholly void. He has also urged that Section 6 of the Act which enables Government by notification to exempt either permanently or for any specified period, any establishment or class of establishments, or person or class of persons, from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government deem fit, is void as it is arbitrary and discriminatory and does not contain within itself any criteria for such exemption. The latter question however does not arise for consideration in this petition since it is not the Petitioner's case that he applied for exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjamma Vs. Bette Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant57; AIR1957Mys57; (1957)35MLJ95
Padmanabhiah, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the order of the learned Munsiff of Hassan in O. S. 940/53 holding her to be an agriculturist. 2. The facts that have given rise to this revision petition are briefly as follows: 3. The defendant in the lower Court is the widow of one Thimmappa, the executant of the pro-note which was the subject-matter of suit in O. S. 940/53 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Hassan. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff beyond three years from the date of the pro-note, and for purposes of limitation the suit was brought under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act claiming an extended period of limitation as provided under Section 24 of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The defendant contended that she was not an agriculturist, that her husband was not an agriculturist on the date of the suit transaction, that he was a school master, that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to the extended period...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›