Karnataka Court June 1958 Judgments

Shrinivas Annappa Vs. Manager, Dhondoba Balkrishnappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1959Kant87; AIR1959Mys87; (1958)36MysLJ858

ORDER1. The respondent, who is the landlord, sued the petitioner, the tenant, for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Bates Control Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on several grounds, one of which is non-payment of rent. The trial court rejected all the contentions of the respondent and dismissed the suit .2. The respondent appealed to the District Court of North Kanara against the dismissal of his suit under Section 29 of the Act. At the hearing of the ap-peal the petitioner, though served with notice, did not appear. The counsel for the plaintiff-appellant pressed the claim for possession only on one ground, viz. non-payment of rent, and that was the only point considered and determined on appeal.2. The appellate authority held that the tenant was in arrears and taking the view that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act ordered eviction. The tenant, against whom this order has been made, has fi...

T.K. Thayumanuvar Vs. Asanambal Ammal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1958Kant190; AIR1958Mys190; 1958CriLJ1522; (1958)36MysLJ497

ORDER1. The petitioner has come up in revision against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 393 of 1957, wherein he enhanced the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 50/- per month.2. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced from the Bar, it is necessary to state the facts of the case briefly.3. The petitioner married the respondent in about 1913. Later he took a second wife. The respondent filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C., as per Cr. Mis. No. 157 of 1938-39 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he has neglected and refused to maintain her. In the course of the enquiry of the said petition, the parties represented to the Court that they had agreed that the petitioner should pay to the respondent maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month till his retirement from service and at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month after ...

In Re: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1959]10STC29(Kar)

Das Gupta, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 16(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee is a manufacturer of ready-made garments in Bangalore. It is not disputed that his sales extend all over India and a large part of his sales are to dealers outside the Mysore State and for consumption outside the said State. The assessee was assessed for the accounting year 1949-50. The order of assessment was made on 22nd March, 1952. In the statement of case sent to this Court in this reference it is stated that originally the assessment order was passed on 22nd March, 1952, estimating the turnover at Rs. 8,00,000 and assessing to a tax of Rs. 12,500 at 3 pies in the rupee. It is further stated in the said statement that in making that assessment the officer concerned did not notice certain statement in which the turnover of the year 1949 had been declared by the petitioner dealer at Rs. 14,57,880-5-4 and also did not notice that the previous Sales Tax Officer had checked the acc...

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mysore Vs. K.H. Shama Rao and Sons

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1959Kant57; AIR1959Mys57; ILR1958KAR373; (1958)36MysLJ606

S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 16(1) of the Mysore Sales-tax Act, 1948. The assessee is a manufacturer of ready-made garments in Bangalore. It is not disputed that his sales extend all over India, and a large part of his sales are to dealers outside the Mysore State and for consumption outside the said State. The assessee was assessed for the accounting year 1949-50. The order of assessment was made on 22-3-1952.In the statement of case sent to this court in this reference it is stated that originally the assessment order was passed on 22-3-1052 estimating the turnover at Rs. 8,00,000/- and assessing to a tax of Rs. 12.500/- at 3 pies in the rupee. It is further stated in the said statement that in making that assessment the officer concerned did not notice certain statement in which the turnover of the year 1949 had been declared by the petitioner dealer at Rs. 14,57,880/5/4 and also did not notice that the previous Sales-tax Officer had cheeked the accounts ...

In Re: Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court: Karnataka

S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 16 (1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee is a manufacturer of ready-made garments in Bangalore. It is not disputed that his sales extend all over India and a large part of his sales are to dealers outside the Mysore State and for consumption outside the said State. The assessee was assessed for the accounting year 1949-50. The order of assessment was made on 22nd March, 1952. In the statement of case sent to this Court in this reference it is stated that originally the assessment order was passed on 22nd March, 1952, estimating the turnover at Rs. 8,00,000 and assessing to a tax of Rs. 12,500 at 3 pies in the rupee. It is further stated in the said statement that in making that assessment the officer concerned did not notice certain statement in which the turnover of the year 1949 had been declared by the petitioner dealer at Rs. 14,57,880-5-4 and also did not notice that the previous Sales Tax Officer had checked t...

M. Basha and anr. Vs. C. Sultan Beig and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1959Kant17; AIR1959Mys17; (1958)36MysLJ558

S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This application is directed against the order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, dated 28-12-1957. By the said order the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, granted renewal of permit of Bus MYF 483 belonging to the 1st respondent for a period of 3 months with effect from 1-1-1958.2. On 12-12-1957 the 1st respondent applied for renewal of permit of his bus MYF 483 with effect from 1-1-1958; his old permit expiring on 31-12-1957. To the said application of the 1st Respondent joint objections were filed by the petitioners on 23-12-1957 and 24-12-1957. On 19-11-1957 the petitioners themselves made an application for a permit for their bus plying on the same route, i.e., Chintamani to Bangalore via Nandigudi, Hoskote, Whitefield. H.A.L. and back.On 28-12-1957 the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority granted the 1st Respondent's application for renewal of his permit. He, however, did not cause the said application or the substanc...

V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Alfred Schafraneck and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1960Kant173; AIR1960Mys173

Malimath, J.(1) This appeal arises out of a suit praying for damages for Rs. 30,000/- and also for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from manufacturing or marketing flower design chair seats. These reliefs are apparently claimed on the ground that the plaintiff has the patent rights under the Patents and Designs Act. But it is a curious suit in that the registered patentees are admittedly defendants 1 and 2 and, on their assignment, the name of defendant 3 has been registered as an assignee.Admittedly the name of the plaintiff is nowhere to be found it the Register of Patents. Ordinarily a suit for infringement of this nature is brought by a patentee against strangers on the allegation that there is an infringement by them of the patent rights. In this case, it is just the reverse of it. We had, therefore, to ask the learned advocate for the appellant to explain how he claims the rights of a patent so as to enable him to file such an action for infringement.His contention is ...

ishwara Joisha Vs. Saraswathi Amma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1959Kant35; AIR1959Mys35; ILR1958KAR364; (1958)36MysLJ484

Hombe Gowda J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of thy Principal Subordinate Judge of South Kanara at Mangalore on R.I.A. 2741 of 1956 in O.S. No. 61 of 1954 appointing a receiver to take possession of and manage the suit schedule properties.2. The facts which led up to the present appeal are as follows; Ganapathi Bhatta (third respondent) obtained a decree against the present appellant and the second respondent on the foot of a mortgage bond executed by the present appellant. The suit schedule properties were subjected to two other prior mortgages. The third respondent took out execution proceedings and got the properties sold in execution for his decree amount but the appellant filed an application for setting aside the sale and the same was being contested.In the meanwhile the Madras Act I of 1955 came into force. According to the said Act a decree-holder was not entitled to enforce the decree and bring the properties to sale without affording an opportunit...

V. Naidu Vs. K. Janardhana Holla

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1959Kant119; AIR1959Mys119; 1959CriLJ620; ILR1958KAR354; (1958)36MysLJ592

ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Bangalore in C. C. No. 36/57. The respondent here-in filed a complaint against the petitioner accusing him of having committed offences under Sections 448 and 454, I.P.C. The offence is said to have been committed or, 4-10-1957. The complaint was filed on 25-11-1957. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath, dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the complaint did not represent a genuine grievance. According to that Court the complainant was agitating a civil right in a criminal Court. It emphasised the question of delay.2. The complainant went up in revision to the learned District Magistrate, Bangalore. The learned District Magistrate on interpreting Section 203, Cr. P. C. came to the conclusion that no Magistrate could dismiss a complaint unless he had examined the complainant and all the witnesses cited by him.In the instant case, the compl...