Karnataka Court April 1958 Judgments
M.S.K. Mills Clerks' Union Vs. Mahaboob Shahi Gulbarga Mills Company, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ164Kant
AWARD1. Under notification No. LLH. 12 ILD. 57, dated 20 November 1957, the Government of Mysore has referred to this Court, the industrial dispute between the abovementioned two parties, for adjudication, the point of dispute referred for adjudication being : 'Whether the management of the M. S. K. Mills Company, Ltd., Gulbarga, was justified in terminating the services of Sri G. R. Kembhavi, the assistant spinning master of the mills; if not, to what relief, if any, he is entitled ?' * * * 2. Only at the time of enquiry Sri Ramanuj Das orally raised some objection to the effect that Sri Kembhavi was not a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the work he was doing was of an administrative nature and so the dispute cannot be an industrial dispute. He also filed a memorandum at the time of arguments raising new points by way of objections. 3. That Sri Kembhavi examined as P.W. 1 was assistant spinning master in employment of M. S. K. Mills, from September 1949 till t...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant1; AIR1959Mys1; ILR1958KAR288; (1958)36MysLJ580
Hombe Gowda, J.1. The appellant Basappa has been convicted of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for having falsely charged Basappa, son of Muruliah and nine others of Doddametikurke village in Arsikere Taluk of having committed the murder of one Basappa of the same village on the evening of 1-10-1952, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore Division in Hassan Sessions Case No. 4 of 1956 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.2. The relevant facts are as follows One Basappa, son of Maruliah. a resident of Doddame-tikurke village in Arsikere Taluk was found murdered in front of Anjaneya Temple of the village at about 10 P.M. on 1-10-1952. The appellant Basappa appeared before the Patel of the village and lodged information to the effect that Basappa, son of Maruliah and nine others of the village, who bore illwill against the deceased m...
Tag this Judgment!Surve Kedarappa Vs. D.G. Bhimappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant36; AIR1959Mys36; (1958)36MysLJ577
1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 387 of 1953 on the file of the learned Munsiff at Davanagere is the appellant in this Court. He sued the Defendants on the basis of Exhibit P-1, a demand promissory note for a sum of Rs. 1000/-. The said promissory note had been executed by Defendants 1 to 3 in favour of a Company by name 'Universal and Engineering Co. Ltd.' Bangalore City.That Company had a Branch at Davanagere. The 5th Defendant was the Manager of the Davanagere Branch. He endorsed the promissory note in question in favour of the plaintiff as per Exhibit P. 1(a). Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the pronote in question is genuine and supported by consideration.They have opined that the assignment Exhibit P. 1(a) is a genuine one. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that out of the consideration of Rs. 1000/- included in Exhibit P. 1, a sum of Rs. 400/- had been discharged by the first Defendant even prior t...
Tag this Judgment!The Lakshmi Engineering Co. Vs. B. Venkatashamanna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant34; AIR1959Mys34; ILR1958KAR273; (1958)36MysLJ479
1. In this appeal the scope of Article 261(3) of the Constitution of India comes up for consideration. The facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellant (decree-holder) obtained a decree against the respondents in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No, 1182/1949. The decree in question was passed on 2-3-1950. It was transferred for execution to the Munsiff, Chitaldrug on 29-11-1950. The present execution case No. 97/53 was filed on 8-3-1953. The judgment-debtors objected to the executability of the decree on the ground that the decree in question is a foreign decree and they had not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad. This contention was repelled by the executing Court. But the learned Subordinate Judge, Chitaldrug, accepted the same in R.A. No, 61/53. The correctness of the said decision is challenged before me. 3. Article 261(3) of the Constitution reads as follows: 'Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by ci...
Tag this Judgment!M. Seshagiri Rao Vs. Chickeeranna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant184; AIR1960Mys184
ORDER(1) In an application which purported to be under the provisions of O. IX, R. 9 of the C.P.C. and which had been filed long after the prescribed period of limitation, the applicant sought to avail himself of the benefit of S. 5 of the Limitation Act. This application was made in the year 1954 and the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act had not been made applicable to the applications made under O. IX, R. 9 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. But the applicant contended that sub-r. (3) of R. 9 of O. IX of the Mysore Code of Civil procedure, 1911-which had made the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to applications under O. IX, R. 9, continued to be operative and that therefore he was entitled to claim the benefit of S. 5 of the Limitation Act. This contention of the applicant was rejected by the learned Second Munsiff of Bangalore. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Second Munsiff, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition.(2) The short po...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmappa Vs. Hanusavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant157; AIR1959Mys157; ILR1958KAR267; (1958)36MysLJ474
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chitaldrug, in R.A. No. 10/53. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the same is not maintainable. The facts of the case are as follows:The mother of the plaintiff as his next friend instituted the present suit on behalf of the minor plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff was the adopted son of one Obalappa. In the said suit the defendants raised objections to the effect that the next friend was not competent to institute the suit on behalf of the minor as the minor's father was alive. When the case was part heard an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to bring on record the father of the plaintiff as co-next friend with his mother.By agreement of parties the Court ordered substitution of the father for the mother as the next friend of the minor plaintiff. But the plaint was not ordered to be amended nor did the parties get i...
Tag this Judgment!Prasannachary Vs. Chikkapinachari and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant106; AIR1959Mys106; 1959CriLJ498; ILR1958KAR254; (1958)36MysLJ434
ORDER1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal parsed by the Second Magistrate, Bangalore City. ThePetitioner made a written complaint to the Police that, on the evening of 8-9-1956, the Accused trespassed into his house, assaulted him and caused him hurt. After investigation, the Bangalore North Police placed a charge-sheet against the Accused in the Court below. After inquiry, charges were framed against the Accused for offences under Sections 448 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and after trial the Accused were acquitted.2. It is thus seen that the case was one instituted in the Court by the Police and not by the Petitioner. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to apply for special leave under Section 417, Sub-section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads :'If such an order of acquittal is passed in any ease instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharmu Nagappa Naik Vs. Manianath Das Desai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant165; AIR1959Mys165; ILR1958KAR249; (1958)36MysLJ519
ORDER1. The present petitioner was the defendant in S. C. Civil Suit No. 162 of 1955 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kar-war. The respondents to this revision petition were the plaintiffs in that suit. The plaintiffs sought for the enforcement of two surety bonds which had been executed hy the present petitioner, when he stood surety for the defendants in another suit namely Original Suit No. 147/1952 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Karwar. Those two surety bonds were Exts. 18 and 25 in the suit before the trial Court. The teamed Civil Judge has given judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and has ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 500/- together with the costs of the suit mid future interest at 3 per cent per annum thereon. Aggrieved by this decision of the learned Civil Judge, the defendant has preferred the present revision petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged two main contentions. His first contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Sonnakka and anr. Vs. Dombara Munekka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant39; AIR1959Mys39; ILR1958KAR239; (1958)36MysLJ458
1. The plaintiffs arc the appellants. The suit is for redemption of a mortgage dated 8-6-1925, the copy of which is marked as Exhibit H. One Munemma is said to be the owner of the property. He died about 30 years before the suit leaving behind, five daughters to succeed him. The two plaintiffs are his daughters. The other daughters were Munemma, Venkatamma and Lakshmamma. Munemma is dead and the fifth defendant is her son and also heir, Venkatamma died without issues. Lakshmamma died unmarried. Hence it is claimed that the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant are the present owners of the suit property. They are tenants in common. 2. Venkatamma executed a usufructuary mortgage of the suit property in favour of the first defendant for Rs. I70/- on 8-6-1925. This was done without the conjunction of her other sisters. Her husband who joined in the execution of the mortgage deed had no right or interest in the property mortgaged. The plaintiffs have sued for redemption of that mortgage. The ...
Tag this Judgment!The Dominion of India and ors. Vs. Premchand Siremal and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant43; AIR1959Mys43; ILR1958KAR245; (1958)36MysLJ455
1. This second appeal is filed by the Union of India, against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Bellary.2. The plaintiff-respondent is a merchant in Bellary. Messrs. Bhimaji Kapurchand of Bombay despatched a parcel from Chinchpockli Station, Bombay to Bellary and sent the railway receipt to the plaintiff. The railway authorities did not deliver the parcel to the plaintiff in spite of demands and notices. Hence the present suit was instituted claiming Rs. 1,473-8-0 being the amount sent to Bhimaji Kapurchand as the value of the goods contained in the parcel. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 184-8-0 being the probable profit which he might have realised at 12% on the cost price. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. But the first appellate Court reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff.3. The learned counsel for the appellants canvassed two propositions of law before me. He did not dispute the findings ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »