Karnataka Court November 1957 Judgments
C.P. Appanna Vs. State of Coorg and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant102; AIR1958Mys102; (1958)36MysLJ73
A.K. Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The principal question Involved in these twowrit petitions is the constitutional validity of an Act passed by the Legislative Council of the Chief Commissioner of Coorg, intituled the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1951 (Coorg Act No. 1 of 1951). This is how the question arises. 2. On 15-1-1951, the Legislative Council of the Chief Commissioner of Coorg which was then a part 'C' State in the Union of India, passed an Act called the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act to which the President of India accorded his assent on 13-5-1951. On the issue of a Notification dated 4-8-1951 under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the Act came into force in that State on 10-3-1951. It is stated in the preamble to the Act that the previous sanction of the Governor General had been obtained under section 97 of the Government of India Act 1935 as adapted by the India Provisional Constitution) Order, 1047, to the passing of that Act. 3. By an order made by respondent 2, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant100; AIR1959Mys100; 1959CriLJ496; (1958)36MysLJ124
ORDER1. Identical questions of law arise for consideration in this batch of 4 criminal revision petitions.2. The accused in these cases were convicted for offences under Section 4(1)(g)(i) of the Mysore Prohibition Act (which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. They pleaded guilty in the trial Court and were convicted on their plea,3. It is contended on behalf of the petitionersthat they were not tried according to law, and as suchtheir conviction is unsustainable. According to thelearned Counsel for the petitioners, the Court hadno jurisdiction to follow the procedure laid down in Section 251(A) of the Cr. P. C. and that the accusedshould have been tried under Section 252 of the Cr. P. C.His grievance is that his clients were deprived ofthe benefit of Section 252 Cr. P. C. and thereby theywere prejudiced. 4. The difficulties in these cases are the outcome of the amendments made to the Cr. P. C. Prior to the amendment...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. N.A. Saravathulla and Co. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant80; AIR1958Mys80; 1958CriLJ781; ILR1957KAR344; [1958]9STC593(Kar)
1. The State of Mysore has preferred these three appeals against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. Nos. 857/52-53, 1342/51-52 and 1410/51-52 respectively, on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore. In each of the said three criminal cases the acquittal was in respect of an offence under Section 20 (b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1848. The accused in the said three cases were all unlicensed dealers in hides and skins and had contended that Rule 23 (5) (of the Rules under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948) which pertained to the sales of hides or skins by dealers other than licensed dealers in hides or skins, was ultra vires. The learned Magistrate took the view that this Rule was in conflict with Section 5 (vi) of the Act and was therefore ultra vires, and that the non-payment of the tax due under the assessment made under that Rule was no offence. Consequently he acquitted all the accused in the said three cases. The question of the validity of Rule 23 (5) be...
Tag this Judgment!The Bellary Central Co-operative Stores Ltd. Vs. Union of India and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant90; AIR1959Mys90; (1958)36MysLJ216
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. On 12-1-1952 defendant 2 consigned from a railway station at a place called Pithapuram, 225 bags of sugar to be delivered to the plaintiff at Bellary. When this consignment of goods was delivered to the plaintiff at Bellary on 29-1-1952 there was a shortage to the extent of 9 maunds and 28 seers of sugar. The plaintiff there-fore brought this suit against defendant 1 the Railway administration for the recovery of its value and the interest thereon.2. The Railway administration repudiated this claim principally on the ground that the loss was not attributable to any misconduct or negligence on its part or on the part of its servants. It also pleaded that the plaintiffs suit had to fail on account of the absence of notices properly issued under Sections 77 and 140 of the Railways Act. The Court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit and this revision petition is directed against that decision.3. The Court below did not decide whether the notices required by Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Seenappa Setty Vs. M.S. Suryanarayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant136; AIR1958Mys136; ILR1957KAR339; (1958)36MysLJ172
ORDER1. This petition arises out of an order made by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Mysore, awarding compensation of Rs. 100/-under Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petitioner before me instituted a small cause suit in the said Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, for arrears of rent on 1-2-1952. On that very day he obtained an order of attachment of an immoveable property of the defendant before judgment. On 6-3-1952, the defendant filed his objections to the said attachment, and on that day he also filed an application under Section 95 C. P. C., for compensation. On 14-11-1952 the suit was decreed. It is not clear as to what happened with regard to the attachment which had been levied. The application for compensation was, however, taken up and an order was made on 16-11-1954, by the learned Subordinate Judge awarding Rs. 100/- as compensation to the defendant. It is against that order that the present petition has been filed. 2. Before me it ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangappa and anr. Vs. Shivamurti Swamy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant120; AIR1958Mys120; ILR1958KAR25; (1958)36MysLJ67
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The question involved in these two petitions is the same, viz., whether or not instances of a corrupt practice, which were not in the original petition, can be allowed to be filed after the time for filing an election petition has expired. There is hardly any dispute on questions of fact. The dispute centres round the construction of Section 90, Sub-section (5) of the Representation of the People Act as it stands after amendment in 1956. 2. The petitioners in both these petitions had filed their respective election petitions for setting aside the elections in which they respectively stood as candidates. The petitioners in their respective petitions referred to various corrupt practices which the respondents are said to have committed and for which the elections were sought to be avoided and gave several instances in each ease of such corrupt practices. Thereafter they made the applications which have given rise to the present petitions for allowing them to give ...
Tag this Judgment!Paschal Nazereth Vs. Denis Lobo
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant126; AIR1958Mys126; ILR1957KAR333; (1958)36MysLJ57
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Mangalore, South Kanara. His suit has been dismissed and he has come up in revision to this Court. This revision petition raises some interesting questions of law. In order to properly appreciate the questions of law that arise for consideration it is necessary to state the facts of the case briefly.2. In the Town of Mangalore a Chit Fund was being run which was known as the New Kerala Daily Auction Chit Fund which will be hereinafter called the 'Fund'. The defendant was a member of the said 'Fund'. He executed a demand promissory note on 28-1-1952 in favour of the 'Fund' for a sum of Rs. 500/- security for the due payment of the future instalments of the chit purchased by him. The practice of this 'Fund' seems to have been that whenever a member was a successful bidder in any of the chit auctions, he will have to execute a pro-note as security for the payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chikka Kempakka Vs. Matchappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant168; AIR1959Mys168; (1958)36MysLJ421
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed O. S. 140/46-47 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore for possession of the suit properties and also for mesne profits. The suit was decreed. Later no be filed I. N No. 10 under Order XX Rule 12 C. P. C. for ascertaining the mesne profits. The teamed Munsiff assessed the mesne profits at Rs. 185/- and passed an order accordingly on 16-6-1954. But in that order lie also mentioned that the required court fee shall he paid within 15 days and if not so paid the I. A. will stand dismissed.The learned counsel for the petitioner says that this portion of the order was not mentioned in the 'A' Diary. He had applied for a copy of the order on 18-6-1954, but he was given that copy only on 13-9-1954. Meanwhile on 6-7-1954 the learned Judge dismissed I. A. 10 on the ground that the court lee in question had not been paid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this order was also passed in chambers and he was not aware of...
Tag this Judgment!Dodda Lakkanna Vs. Lakshmidevamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant28; AIR1959Mys28; ILR1958KAR21; (1958)36MysLJ179
ORDER1. The Petitioner before me is the auction-purchaser in a Court sale. The 2nd Respondent, i.e. the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, instituted a suit in the court of the First Mansiff, Banglore, against the 1st Respondent and got a decree The service of the summons in the said suit was effected on 2-9-1949 by registered post. On 10-9-1949, an expert decree was passed in favour of the 2nd Respondent. An application was thereafter made on behalf of the 1st Respondent by her husband to set aside the said decree. The main ground in that application was that the Respondent 1 was of unsound mind. The lower Court held on evidence adduced before it that the 1st Respondent was of unsound mind and set aside the decree. The present petition has been filed against the said order of the lower Court. 2. Two grounds were urged in support of this petition. In the first place it was urged that the application is not maintainable. The second ground urged was that there has been gross misapprec...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Mys ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ613Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner before us is the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company, Ltd., managed by Binny & Co., Ltd., The prayer of the petitioner is for issue of writs certiorari and for quashing the award of the Industrial tribunal, Bangalore, in I.C. No. 11 of 1955, dated September 25 1956. The facts on which this petition is founded may be shortly stated as follows. 2. The petitioner had applied, under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act - Central Act XX if 1946, to the certifying authority constituted under the said Act for certification of draft standing orders which were submitted by the petitioner. The authority concerned, after due notice, certified the same on July 16 1955. The respondent 3 (the Binny Mills Labour Association), having taken exception to a number of standing orders submitted by the management and certified by the carrying authority, raised an industrial dispute with reference thereto. Thereafter by notification dated Augus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »