Karnataka Court July 1958 Judgments
T. Dattam Bhat Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant222; AIR1959Mys222
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioner before us is an Inamdar of Kuppagadde Village, Sorab Taluk in Shimoga District. In this petition ho is challenging the validity of the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and also of the Notification made thereunder by the Government of Mysore, dated 20-9-1956. By the said Notification the provisions of the Act were made applicable in respect of certain Surveys and Settled Inam Villages, in the Districts of Bangalore and Shimoga, as specified in the said Notification.2. The impugned Act came into force on 15-3-1955. It was an Act, as the preamble of it shows, to provide for the abolition of personal inams and certain miscellaneous inams in the (Mysore Area) except Bellary District. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act provided that except Sections 2, 27, Section 8 and 40, the rest of the said Act shall come into force in respect of any inam village or minor inam in an unalienated village, on such date as the Government by Notification appoint....
Tag this Judgment!Ramanna Rai and ors. Vs. A.G. Narayana Bhandary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant158; AIR1959Mys158; 1959CriLJ746
ORDER1. The respondent before me filed Order P. No. 117/1956 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Puttur, South Kanara, under Seections, 195and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the Court may be pleased to make a complaint against the petitioners before me for offences-said to have been committed by them under Sections 193, 209, 467 and 471 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The allegations in support of this application are that a certain lease deed, on the strength of which Original south No. 391/1952 was filed by the second petitioner before me against the respondent in the District Munsiffs Court of Puttur, was fabricated by the first petitioner in connivance with the other petitioners and that he also made petitioners 3 and 4 to give false evidence in support of it. The suit had been dismissed on the finding that the lease deed in question was false.This petition was filed on 26-10-1956. Notice-returnable 19-11-1956 was issued to the respond...
Tag this Judgment!F.M. Subbayya Vs. Venkataramana Subrao Barkur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant145; AIR1959Mys145
ORDER1. The respondent, who is the landlord, sued the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for recovery of possession of the house leased to the petitioner with arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sirsi and was numbered as Small Cause Suit No. 119/1957. The court granted decree tor possession to be delivered to the respondent within one month of the decree and also directed payment of rents and mesne profits with liberty to the respondent io take out the amounts deposited in Court by the petitioner in satisfaction of the decree, 2. Against the said decree or order the petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887. One of the principal points argued before me is whether this revision petition is maintainable or competent, the respondent's learned Counsel cont...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishna Muniswamy Pillai Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant11; AIR1960Mys11
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of understanding the contentions raised by Mr. V. Krishnamurthy appearing on behalf of the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner was one of the several applicants for a permit in a new route from Hassan to Charmadi. Besides the petitioner there were three other applicants, Respondent No. 3 was one of them. The petitioner not only filed his application for grant of the said permit to him but also filed representations against the other applicants for permits.The other applicants merely filed their applications for permits but did not file any representations either against the application of the Petitioner or against any of the other applications. The matter came up for decision before the State Transport Authority and it was argued before the said authority by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that inasmuch as no representations had been preferred or objections filed against the application of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. the Mysore Revenue Appellat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant62; AIR1959Mys62; ILR1958KAR500; (1958)36MysLJ794
A.R. Somnath Iyer J.1. On 21-6-1956, the Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga, called for applications under the provisions of Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of a stage carriage permit to run bus services on four routes, and fixed a date for the receipt of those applications. One of those routes was a route between Sagar and Bhatkal. It was stated in that notification that the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, would receive these applications in connection with the proposal mentioned in that notification; and that proposal was to run bus services on the routes mentioned in that notification under reciprocal arrangements between the States of Mysore and Bombay. In response to that notification, the petitioner, respondent 2 and another who is not a party to this writ petition, presented their applications which, it is not now disputed, were applications for the grant of a permit to run a bus service between Sagar and Bhatkal. After the receipt of those appl...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Owning the Southern Railways Vs. Sha Vastimull Harakcha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant13; AIR1959Mys13; (1958)36MysLJ655
ORDER1. The petitioner, the Union of India owning the Southern Railways, attacks in this petition a decree passed against it in Small Cause 63 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, filed by the respondent in the following circumstances:2. A firm called Shaw Moolchand Asharam and Co., of Ahmedabad delivered to the railway on 14-2-1.955 eight bales of cloth for despatch and delivery to the plaintiff at Shimoga. When the bales arrived at Shimoga railway station, it was discovered that one of the bales was loose and the stitches on it appeared to have been removed and subsequently restitched.The plaintiff having insisted on open delivery, such open delivery was given at Shimoga railway station on 17-3-1955. The record of the open delivery shows that the loose bale contained only 27 pieces as against the 32 mentioned in the Patties, and after deducting from the total yardage of 726 yards, according to the packing slip the actual length of 611 yards of the remaining 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Hanuman Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant72; AIR1959Mys72; ILR1958KAR472; (1958)36MysLJ628
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The Petitioner before us complains against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 14-8-1953 granting permit in respect of bus route from Udipi to Dharamstala.2. The Regional Transport Authority had on 7-4-1951 issued a notification under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act calling for application for permit in respect of this route. As a result of that notification there were 7 applications for the said permit, the application of the Petitioner before us being on of them. On 30-4-1951, the Regional Transport Authority issued a notification under Section 57 (3) ' of the Motor Vehicles Act. The matter was posted for hearing on 30-6-1951. On that date the Regional Transport Authority made the following order ;'As a part of the route namely Ujre to Dharamstala lies through a private the question of granting a permit for any stage carrier can be granted only after this part of the route becomes a public road.'The said authority, however, on 31-12...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Karnataka Motor Services Ltd. Vs. the Mysore Board of Reve ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant72; AIR1960Mys72
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The Petitioner before us is a public limited company operating bus service. Pursuant to a notification published by the State Transport Authority, which is the 2nd respondent before us, under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act calling for applications for the grant of a bus permit in the route Harihar-Agumble, the Petitioner and 23 other persons made applications for the grant of such permit. On 17-4-1956 on scrutiny of all the applications made before it the State Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner and of some of the other applicants as not being in the prescribed form.The said authority retained the applications of 11 persons whose applications they held were in the prescribed form. On 3rd July 1957 the State Transport Authority communicated its said Order to the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner appealed to the Government, Pending the hearing of this appeal the State Reorganisation Act came into operation on 1-11-1956 and t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. P.C. Sarangapani Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Mys245; 1960CriLJ1227
(1) This is an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 25-8-1956 of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Tiptur in Criminal case Number 44 of 1955 acquitting the respondents of the several charges framed against them under the Indian Mines Act read with the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations of 1926.(2) The facts of the case are simple and briefly stated are as follows : The first respondent P. K. Sarangapany Mudaliar obtained a prospecting license from the State of Mysore for exploiting manganese ore in an area known as Venkajigudda in the year 1951 and has been working the Mines ever since. Respondents 2 to 5 are connected with those mines as they are working under the first respondent. On 23-12-1954 there was an accident at about 10-30 A.M. In 'Vajra Block' of Venkajigudda Manganese Mines which resulted in the death of six of the labourers working in the Mines and injuries to some others.The accident was due to the collapse of the side walls of the Mines. The matter was reported to th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Hanumant Shetty and ors. Vs. Ganappa Jattu Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant25; AIR1959Mys25; ILR1958KAR461; (1958)36MysLJ617
ORDER1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original defendant in original Civil Suit No. 50/1954 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kumta The respondent is the original plaintiff in that suit. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant in respect of the suit lands. He having kept the rents in arrears, the defendant sued him for recovery of possession of the demised lands together with arrears of rent and future mesne profits in O. S. (118/1948 on the file of the trial Court. A decree as prayed for was passed in his favour. The defendant put the decree in execution in Regular Darkhast No. 149/1950 and recovered possession of the lands in September 1951. In that Darkhast the present plaintiff filed an application contending that the Court had no jurisdiction to deliver possession at the lands is view of the provisions of the Bombay 'Tenancy Act of 1939 as amended by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »