Karnataka Court July 1958 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.C. Pillappa Vs. M. Munireddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant155; AIR1959Mys155; (1958)36MysLJ539
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree against the respondent in O. S. No. 150/52-53 on the file of the lower Court. The respondent claiming that he has paid the decree amount in full, filed Misc. Case No. 249 of 1955 under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for entering up satisfaction of the decree. This application was opposed as having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefore under Article 174 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act. In view of this opposition the respondent did not press that application. Subsequently he filed the present application. Mis. Case 356/1955, out of which this revision arises.2. This subsequent application purports to be one made under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the prayers are to enter full satisfaction of the decree in O. S. 150/52-53 and to convert the application into a suit. The lower Court taking the view that Section 47 of the Code permits a proceeding under...
S. Ranga Rao Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant199; AIR1959Mys199; 1959CriLJ1005; (1958)36MysLJ550
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Sub-Divisions I Magistrate, Hospet, in C. C. No. 45 of 1956, under S. 15(a) of the Madras Sales Tax Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default to undergo S. I. for two months. The conviction as well as the sentence have been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1957 on his tile. As against these decisions the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.2. A number of grounds have been taken in this revision petition, challenging the correctness as well as the legality of the conviction and sentence, But for obvious reasons, only one ground had been pressed before me, i. e., ground No. 1. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Sri G. P. Jagadeesh, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hospet, who convicted the petitioner, had no authority to do so as his appointment as a Magistrate was not in accordance with law. It was urged that the appointment of Sri Jagad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›