Karnataka Court March 1957 Judgments
Venkatappa Vs. S. Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant79; AIR1957Mys79; (1957)35MysLJ142
Hombe Gowda, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 20(2) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act of 1951 against the order passed by the Election Commissioner, Chikmagalur in Election Mis. (old No. 24/56) New No. 13 of 1956 on his file, setting aside the election of the appellant as a Municipal Councillor from the sixth Division of the Town Municipal Council, Chikmagalur held on 27-2-1956 and directing fresh election to be held in the said Division.2. The undisputed facts are as follows: The appellant and the first respondent Subba Rao are the residents of Chikmagatur Town and they are the voters in the 6th Division for the Municipal Council. The appellant, the first respondent, another person by name Kappanna and some others filed their nomination papers for the election to be held on 27-2-1956 to the Municipal Council from the 6th Division of Chikmagalur Town. At the time of the scrutiny, of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer, Sri Kappanna raised an objection to the ca...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Narasingappa Vs. T.P. Siddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant87; AIR1957Mys87; (1957)35MysLJ135
Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the election petition filed before him by the present Appellant under Section 20 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act 1051. The ground on which the election of Respondent was sought to be set aside was that not being 25 years of age he was disqualified to be a Municipal Councillor by virtue of Section 14 (1) (e).Under Section 14 (3) it is provided that, if any question or dispute arises whether a vacancy has occurred under that section, the orders of the Government shall be final for the purpose of deciding such question or dispute. Under Section 20 of the Act any candidate who stood for election or any ten persons qualified to vote at that election, may apply to the Election Commissioner for the determination of the validity of the election.The learned Civil Judge before whom the election petition came up for consideration in his capacity as Election Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ravoof Sab Vs. T.N. Kempahonniah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant84; AIR1957Mys84; (1957)35MysLJ128
Sreenivasa Rau, J. 1. The appellant and Respondents 1 and 2 contested the Municipal Elections for Division No. I, Tumkur Town, held in February 1956 under the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951. Respondent 1 filed an Election Petition under Section 20 of the Act challenging the Appellant's election on the ground that an unauthorised symbol different from that, assigned to the Appellant had been attached to the ballot box of the Appellant and that the use of that symbol had materially affected the result of the election. His contention was that the symbol assigned, to the Appellant was a pair of bullocks which is one of the symbols authorised under R. 28, but the symbol actually used on the. Appellant's ballot box was a pair of bullocks with a yoke and that as the latter symbol is associated with the Indian National Congress as an election symbol for legislative elections, its use resulted in enabling the appellant to obtain the majority of votes that he did. The learned Civil Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkanarasaiah and ors. Vs. Venkatappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Kant70; AIR1957Mys70; 1957CriLJ987; ILR1957KAR20; (1957)35MysLJ131
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by. the petitioners-accused against the order of the learned Second Magisirate, Bangalore, dismissing their application filed under Section 344 Cr. P. C. for stay of proceedings pending against them in C. C. No. 973 of 1956, pending disposal of O. S. No. 261/56 on the file of the second Munsiff, Bangalore.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:3. The respondent-complainant preferred a complaint against these petitioners-accused before the learned Second Magistrate, Bangalore, alleging that he has been in possession of the schedule land, that the accused trespassed into it on 2-6-56 and obstructed him from ploughing the land, that they further assaulted him and that they thereby committed offences under Sections 447. 341 and 352 I. P. C. After the petitioners-accused appeared before Court, they filed an application under Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code for stay of proceedings in that criminal cas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›