Karnataka Court December 1957 Judgments
In Re: Gordon Frederic Muirhead and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant83; AIR1959Mys83; (1958)36MysLJ208
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The question which is referred to us for decision is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to grant probate and/or letters of administration in respect of an estate, the whole of which is within the State of Mysore. The answer to this question, from whatever point of view it may be considered, can only be in the affirmative.If we take into consideration the existing provisions of the Indian Succession Act, which came into force in the State of Mysore on the 1st of April. 1951, we find that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred by the said Act upon the District Judge, at least, in the matter of granting probate and/or letters of administration. Section 300 of the said Act makes this position clear. It reads as follows:--'(1) Tile High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred upon the District Judge. (2) Except in ...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Shanthamallappa Vs. M.D. Chandappa Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant116; AIR1958Mys116; (1958)36MysLJ91
N. Sheenivasa Rau, J. 1. The Appellant was the owner of a motor lorry. The respondent is the father of one Annayya who died on 19-3-1956 in consequence of injuries sustained by him when the lorry had been taken out for bringing a load of stones. The Respondent claimed compensation as a dependent of Annayya under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that the fatal accident arose out of and in the course of Annayya's employment as a cleaner of the lorry under the Appellant., It was contended by the Appellant that Annayya had not been his employee and that the accident had not arisen out of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, however, upheld the claim and awarded compensation on the basis that Annayya was getting monthly wages of Rs. 60/-. 2. In this appeal though the Appellant challenged the correctness of the Commissioner's finding that Annayya was a workman under the Appellant and the quantum of compensation awarded, the learned Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. K. Mohamed Ismail
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant143; AIR1958Mys143; 1958CriLJ1327; ILR1958KAR74; (1958)36MysLJ61; [1958]9STC714(Kar)
M. Sadasivayya, J. 1. The question of the validity of Section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948 having arisen in C. G. Nos. 288 and 289/54 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, the said Magistrate has made this reference under Section 432 of the Cr. P. C. The question which has been referred to the High Court is'Whether Section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and of the Cr. P. C. and whether the accused is entitled to question the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority, in this Court'.A short time prior to the making of this reference, the Madras High Court had held in the case of In re Guruviah Naidu and Co., reported in : AIR1954Mad833 (A), that Section 16-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (which corresponds to Section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948) was ultra vires of the Constitution and of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The counsel for the accused in the two criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Balawantrai Bhikabhai Parekh and ors. Vs. the South Kanara Market Comm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant29; AIR1959Mys29
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The Petitioners before us are merchants from Gujarat having their office at Mangalore Bunder. The 1st Respondent is the South Kanara Market Committee. The 2nd Respondent is the Collector of Customs, Mangalore. The present petition has been made for relief against imposition of fee under the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 (Madras Act XX of 1933) and against the requirements under the said Act to take out licence for use of any place for the purchase or sale of notified commercial crops and for the storage, weighment, pressing or processing etc., of such crops. 2. The matter arises in this way : -- On the 25th of July, 1933 the said Act being the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933, carne into force. It was an Act to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of commercial crops and the establishment of markets for commercial crops in the Presidency of Madras. The preamble of the said Act reads as follows: 'Whereas it is expedient to ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandappa Vs. SadruddIn Ansari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant132; AIR1958Mys132; ILR1957KAR448; (1958)36MysLJ139
ORDER1. These two revision petitions are directed against the notification issued by the former Gov Government of Hyderabad under Section 39 of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act. The notification is No. 1 dated 20-1-1954 and published in Gazette Ordinary, Part I-D at page 70, January 21st, 1954. The notification is issued in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is as follows : 'In exer exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act 1324F (4 of 132-(F). the Rajpramukh is pleased to exempt all displaced destitute persons in the whole of the Hyderabad State who during the period of 2 years commencing from 13th Sep. 1947 to 13th Sep. 1949 have been dispossessed of their immoveable property, from the payment of the court-fees payable under Schedule Nos. 1 and 2 of the said Act, m respect of all claims relating to the restoration of such property preferred by them in any civil Court in the Hyderabad Stale on production of a certificate issued by the Collector of the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. N.S. Bathena
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant148; AIR1958Mys148; ILR1958KAR62; (1958)36MysLJ131
ORDER1. The revision petitioner before me is the defendant in Regular Suit No. 197 of 1953 on the file of the First Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Belgaum. The plaintiff is running an industrial concern in Belgaum. The defendant is a firm supplying electricity to the town of Belgaum. The suit was for injunction (1) restraining the defendant from making the minimum charges (2) recovery of Rs. 362-5-0 and (3) restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electric connections to the plaintiff's concern. The plaintiff contends that the standing charges imposed on him by the defendant are illegal and ultra vires. The defendant-petitioner apart from controverting the plaint allegations, applied to the trial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to refer the disputes to arbitration. He insisted that under Clause 16 of the VIth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act' read with Section 76 of the said Act the dispute in question is required ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sadianna Shetty Vs. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR692(KAR); [1958]33ITR692(Karn)
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The only question raised in this petition is whether or not an order of the Income-tax Officer levying penalty on a dissolved firm is valid. The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of understanding the position in this matter may be shortly stated as follows : The petitioner before us was one of the three partners of a firm which was dissolved on 18th November, 1953. The said partnership had come into existence in the year 1935. On 31st May, 1952, an assessment was made under section 23(3) on the said firm for the accounting year ending with 9th November, 1950, the assessment year being 1951-52. There was an appeal by the assessee against the said assessment, filed on 26th June, 1952, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 17th January, 1956, reduced the amount assessed and gave relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 26,000 and odd. There was a further appeal against the said order to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Chanabasappa Shivappa Vs. Gurupadappa Murigappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant184; AIR1958Mys184; (1958)36MysLJ150
S.R. Das Gupta, C. J. 1. This application relates to the validity of an order made by the learned Judge who decided an election case By which he ordered that the election of the petitioner be set aside and respondent 1 be declared duly elected. The matter arises in this way :The election in question was held on 3-6-1957, to Ward No. 5 of the Athani Municipality, Belgaum District. On 5-6-1957, the scrutiny was made and the results were declared. The petitioner was declared elected along with two others, it being a three-seated constituency. Respondent 1 before us, applied to the District Judge, Belgaum on 12-6-1957, for setting aside the election and for an order that he should be declared elected.The grounds taken by the respondent in his said application inter alia were that there were corrupt practices committed in the said election and there was partiality of one Kulakarni who was the Chairman of the Municipality and the Chairman of the scrutiny committee. It was also alleged that c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shivabasappa Rayappa Channalli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant47; AIR1959Mys47; 1959CriLJ337; (1958)36MysLJ594
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the present appellant in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Dharwar. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: 2. The present appellant along with two other persons who were accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the said Sessions Case, had been charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative, for an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that between the 7th and 8th of September 1956, these three accused persons had intentionally caused the death of one Sangappa Hanamappa Haglad of Halligudi village while the said Sangappa was proceeding on his bicycle from Venkatapur to Halligudi, and that thereafter all the accused persons removed the dead body of Sangappa and burnt it in a hay stack with the intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of t...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Loganathan Vs. Channarayappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant167; AIR1959Mys167; (1958)36MysLJ422
ORDER1. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 45 of 1957 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Bangalore, has come up in revision against the order of the lower Court, directing him to pay court-fee on Rs. 10,500/-.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order of eviction in H. R. C. No. 117/1956 does not bind him. He also prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendants from executing the order of delivery of possession in Execution Case No. 361 of 1957 pursuant to the said H. R. C. Order.3. He valued the suit for purposes of court fee at Rs. 200/- and paid Court-fee on Rs. 200/-. For purpose of jurisdiction he valued the suit at Rs. 10,500/-. The Court below held that the valuation for purposes of court-lee should be the same as that of the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. Hence he has been called upon to pay additional court-fee. The petitioner complains that the said order is invalid and prayed for revision of the order.4. Before I deal with the merits ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›