Karnataka Court February 1958 Judgments
D. Siddaramappa Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant12; AIR1959Mys12; (1958)36MysLJ466
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The petitioner before us is the proprietor of a bus service known as Sri Mallinatha Motor Service. Respondent 2 is the owner of another bus service known as jagadeesh Motor Service, Davaugere. The petitioner obtained a permit sometime in November 1950 to ply his service from Chital-drug to Davangere via Barhmasagara, Bilichod and Anaji. Respondent 2 in February 1951 got a permit to ply his bus service from Sokke to Davangere via Hosakere, Bilichod and Anaji. A portion of the two routes, that is to say the route given to the petitioner and the route, given to Respondent 2, was common -- that is the portion which fell between Davangere and Bilichod.In the original permit granted to the petitioner 5 p.m. was the time fixed For departure of his bus from Davangere to Chitaldrug, and similarly the time fixed in the permit granted to Respondent 2 for departure from Davangere of his bus to Sokke was 5-30 p.m. Thereafter on 21-8-1952 on an application made by Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Balakrishna Vs. Sadasivaraju and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant105; AIR1960Mys105
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) On the night of May 5, 1950, at a point, on what is described in the evidence as the platform mad near a railway underbridge, in Bangalore City a lorry bearing No. MY 2799 Z was involved in an accident in which one Eswararaju and two others were killed. This Eswararaju was, it appears, at that time, 52 years old and was a Government servant serving as an overseer in the City Improvement Trust Board in the City, of Bangalore.(2) The suit out of which this appeal arise was instituted by his son the first plaintiff and by his three unmarried daughters, plaintiffs 2 to 4 for the recovery from defendant 1, who according to them was the owner of that lorry, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- which as claimed by them, represented the loss of pecuniary benefit which they would have derived according to reasonable expections, had not Eswararaju been killed in that way.The case for the plaintiffs was that defendant 2, a driver employed by defendant 1 was driving the lorry on that date at ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinanath and anr. Vs. Chandrabhagabai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Kant92; AIR1958Mys92; ILR1958KAR171; (1958)36MysLJ182
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. On an application made under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Deputy Nazir of the Court of the District Judge, Belgaum, was appointed guardian of the properties of the four minor sons of one Shripad Deshpande, who left behind him those four minor sons, his two widows and also a daughter by his first wife Laxmibai and another daughter Gulab by his second wife Chandrabhagabai. Pursuant to a notification issued under the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Guardians and Wards Act by the Government o Bombay in the year 1954, the personal Assistant to the Collector of Belgaum was appointed guardian of the properties of those four minor sons in place of the Deputy Nazir of the District Judge's Court, Belgaum, who had been originally appointed as such guardian. 2. The eldest of those four brothers completed the age of 21 years on April 25, 1957, whereupon he made an application (Ex. 44) in the Court below that possession of the properties in...
Tag this Judgment!Narajappa Vs. Chikkaramiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant117; AIR1959Mys117; 1959CriLJ618; ILR1958KAR167; (1958)36MysLJ253
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision petition against the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 1957. The facts and circumstances which have led to the present criminal revision petition, briefly stated are as follows :2. There were proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Case No. 17/55 in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Tumkur. Amongst the documents which had been produced by the first party in those proceedings was a certain kandayam receipt which bore the date 15-12-1947 and purported to be for Rs. 66-11-3 and had been signed by Narajappa second member of the first party.This Narajappa appears to have been examined as P.W. 4 in the said proceedings and this receipt has been marked as Exhibit D-23. This receipt purported to show that the payment of the said amount of Rs. 66-11-3 had been made by Sidclara makka the first of the first party; but, it als...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Shamsunder and Co. and ors. Vs. T. Mamu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant79; AIR1959Mys79; ILR1958KAR164; (1958)36MysLJ364
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. The petitioners in this case were the decree-holders in Execution Case No. 112 of 1955 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. By his order dated 27-6-1936 passed in the above said Execution Case, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the fist judgment-debtor had no means to pay and refused to make an order for the arrest of the said judgment-debtor. The decree-holders feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes have preferred the present revision petition.2. The main contention which has been urged by the petitioners is that the first judgment-debtor had been barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and that therefore the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes should not have entered into the question as to whether the judgment-debtor had means to pay. It would appear that in response to a notice issued under Rule 37 of Order XXI, the counsel for the judgment-deb...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Chikka Ramaiah and anr. Vs. Appaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant50; AIR1959Mys50; 1959CriLJ340; (1958)36MysLJ127
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, in Criminal Mis. Case No. 1 of 1958.2. The facts of the case are as follows :3. The police of Thippagondanahalli, Magadi Taluk, moved the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, in Crime No. 44/57 to take action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate issued the necessary preliminary order. In view of the emergency he took action under Section 145(4), Cr. P. C., and attached the property in dispute with the standing crops. He directed the Amildar of Magadi Taluk to he in charge of the attached property and he also directed him to sell the standing crops by public auction. The Amildar reported on 15-1-1958 as follows :'I went to Yelachaguppe Village on the noon of 13th and after waiting for about an hour and finding that a large number of persons had assembled near the lands, I proceeded with the auctioning of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›