Karnataka Court February 1957 Judgments
D.K. Himantharaja Gupta Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant75; AIR1957Mys75; 1957CriLJ1150; (1957)35MysLJ115
ORDER1. The petitioner was convicted or an offence punishable under Section 56 (g) of the Mysore Police Act. The learned Magistrate instead of sentencing him directed him 'to execute a bond in a sum of Rupees fifty to appear and receive sentence during a period of three months and meanwhile to obey the laws which are framed for the benefit of accused himself and the public.'The office raised a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that an appeal lay against the conviction.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner urges that the case was tried summarily, that an offence under Section 56 (g) of the Mysore Police Act is punishable only with a maximum fir.e of Rs. 50/-and that under Section 414 of the Code of Criminal Pro-eedure, no appeal lies against a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 200/-. The test under Section 414 or the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, however is not the punishment in respect of an offence but the sentence actually...
Tag this Judgment!Kapila Bai Vs. H.S. Madhava Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant71; AIR1957Mys71; ILR1957KAR14; (1957)35MysLJ107
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order of the learned First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, dismissing her applications I. A. Nos. X and XI in O. S. 9 Of 1944-45.2. The facts that have given rise to this revision petition are briefly as under:3. The petitioner-plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree against the respondents in O. S. 9 of 1944-45 for partition & possession of her 1-3rd share in the schedule properties. This was on 31-8-46. She made an application I A. No. VIII on 25-3-48 under Section 54 and Order XX, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that a copy of the preliminary decree may be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, for effecting the division of the lands and putting her in possession of her 1/ 3rd share. A warrant was accordingly issued for division of the properties by metes and bounds and the same was returned with a shara that the warrant was duly executed. Acting on this shara, the Court passed a...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimiah Vs. Venkatappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant86; AIR1957Mys86; ILR1957KAR9; (1957)35MysLJ85
Hombe Gowda, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 4 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act for revision of the finding in Order Section No. 275 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff of Doddaballapur that the petitioner though an agriculturist under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act cannot claim any relief under the Act and that therefore no finding on the first issue is necessary.2. This revision petition came up for disposal before the Hon'ble Justice Sri K. N. Padmanabhiah and the learned Judge felt that the question 'whether an agriculturist plaintiff suing on an usufructuary mortgage deed can claim the benefit under the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act alleging that an apparently usufructuary mortgage deed was actually intended to be a simple hypothecation deed on which he could sue ior recovery of money by sale of hypothecated properties'needs an authoritative pronouncement to serve as a guide, to the lower Courts and referred it to a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›