Karnataka Court August 1958 Judgments
Shaikh Ismail Vs. Malan Bi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant184; AIR1959Mys184; ILR1958KAR579
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order relining the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff sued the defendants for partition and separate possession of the properties in suit in which he claimed one-third share. The trial Court came to the conclusion, that the value of the entire property and not the value of the share to he partitioned determines the jurisdiction. And as its value exceeds Rs. 2,000/-. returned the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, to he presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction.A Miscellaneous Appeal No. 139/1 of 1932-53 was filed by the plaintiff in the District Judge's Court, Bidar. The District Judge confirming the order of the trial Court rejected the miscellaneous appeal by its order dated 21-6-1954. Against this order, the plaintiff has come in revision before us. Relying upon the ruling in the case of Venkat Babaiah, v. Venkat Ratnayya, AIR 1953 Hyd 256, it is contended on behalf of the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Malkappa Vs. Padmanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant122; AIR1959Mys122; 1959CriLJ621; ILR1958KAR1; (1958)36MysLJ800
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The only point for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether a criminal court should proceed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure iu respect of immoveable property which is the subject matter of Civil litigation actually pending in a Civil Court.2. There is no dispute regarding the principal facts in this case. The respondent before me has already filed a suit against the petitioner in which he obtained a temporary injunction on 11-12-1956, which was made absolute on 16-9-1957, Upon appeal by the petitioner against that order, the District Court appears to have passed an order of stay suspending the operation of the trial Court's order dated 16-9-1957 till the disposal of the appeal before the District Court.This stay order was passed on 14-10-1957. On 6-11-57 the police made a report before the Munsiff Magistrate of Gulbarga stating that the parties are contending among themselves on the question of possession of the very pro...
Tag this Judgment!R.J. Parvatikar Vs. Guledgud City Municipality and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1961Kant181; AIR1961Mys181; ILR1960KAR211
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner was employed by the Guledgud City Municipality on March 19, 1939 as a Naka Rakhavaldar on salary of Rs. 13/- per month. In the year 1941, he was transferred as a Sanitary Mukadam in the Sanitary Department of the same Municipality. 2. On December 16, 1943, be was accused or having used service stamps for a communication addressed on behalf of the Municipality to a Municipal Councillor whereas he should have used only the ordinary postage stamps. He having been found guilty of such misuse of those service stamps, was dismissed from, service. 3. By an order made by the Chief Officer on April 29, 1944, be was again appointed as a Sanitary Mukadam in the same Municipality on a pay of Rs. 15/- per mensem, with effect from May 1, 1944. The petitioner was directed to join the post on that date and take charge of it. 4. The petitioner joined that appointment and appears to have made a representation to the Municipality that he should be given his salary for t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay, Now the State of Mysore Vs. Dattatraya Narasingrao Ud ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant95; AIR1960Mys95
(1) The facts leading up to this appeal shortly stated are as follows:The father of the plaintiff one N. Udipi had brought a Special Suit No. 95/1934 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, for a declaration that his son Shankar was the adopted son of one D. Patel and for partition and allotment of his share in the properties of the said D. Patel. The suit was instituted against the relations of the said D. Patel. This suit was brought in forma pauperis. On 26-12-1936 the suit was dismissed and the said N. Udipi who acted as next friend on behalf of his minor son Shankar was ordered to pay Court-fees amounting to Rs. 1,732/-. Against that order an appeal was taken to the High Court of Bombay. That appeal was also filed in forma pauperis. On 17-1-1938 the said appeal was dismissed and the next friend was ordered to pay the Court-fees payable in the appeal amounting to Rs. 1,716-8-0. The total amount which the next friend had to pay under the orders of the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Md. Jalal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant54; AIR1959Mys54; 1959CriLJ344; (1958)36MysLJ662
1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by the learned District Magistrate of Gulbarga in the following circumstances:2. On 12-8-1956 one Abdul Wahed on behalf of one Rasul Bi made a written complaint to theYadgir police charging the respondents before me with having illegally broken into her house on 5-8-1956 by breaking the locks and with having removed certain properties kept therein. It was also complained that the accused continued in illegal occupation of the house. This information was registered by the police under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.After investigation, however, they filed a charge sheet before the Munsiff-Magistrate of Yadgir only in respect on an offence under Section 457 I.P.C. This was on 21-9-1956. Thereafter the case underwent a series of adjournments as one or other of the parties was absent and one of the accused frequently reported illness. On 19-3-1957 the accused filed a written statement setting out va...
Tag this Judgment!Hospet Estate, Chickmagalur Vs. Its Workers (Karnataka Provincial Plan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ95Kant
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 and 16(2)AWARD1. This is a dispute referred by the Government of Mysore by its order No. LLH. 332 ILD 57, dated Bangalore, 18/25 September 1957, for adjudication to this Labour Court, Bangalore. The letter of reference was taken on this Court file on 4 October 1957 and as usual the parties were summoned. Both the parties put in their appearance and filed their respective statements. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the union first party contended that the petitioner Keshava Maistri was in service of the respondent-estate, throughout the year 1956 and in the early part of the year 1957. His services were summarily terminated with effect from 3 January 1957, without holding even a formal enquiry. The petitioner requested the employer to take him back in service but his request was not heeded. So the petitioner at the earliest opportunity approached the conciliation officer through the Karnataka Provincial Plantation Wor...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. P.K. Atre
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant65; AIR1959Mys65; 1959CriLJ347; (1958)36MysLJ744
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. This revision petition raises an intricate point regarding the interpretation and effect Of Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced for the first time by the amending Act XXVI of 1955. There is only one reported decision of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court dealing with this Section and that is found reported in C.B.L. Bhatnagar v. The State, : AIR1958Bom196 . The observations made in that judgment are relied upon by both sides in support of their respective contentions, although the decision itself does not finally conclude the controversy now before me for decision.2. The undisputed facts may be stated briefly. In the wake of the reorganization of States in 1956 there were some disturbances in Belgaum in consequence of which orders were issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. Breaches of these orders were committed or attempt...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Puttasamiah Vs. Gangamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant170; AIR1960Mys170
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant (a) to remove the latrine pit kept by him on the sides of the northern wall of the plaintiff's house and put the same 3 ft. To 4 ft. off farther so that no damage may be caused to the said wall of the plaintiff's house and also to repair the drain so that the water of eaves of the plaintiff's house and the water of the defendant's house may flow out easily; and (b) to allow the workers of the plaintiff to enter upon the defendant's open yard for repairing the northern wall of the plaintiff's house and not to cause any obstruction in so entering and carrying out the repairing work.(2) The defendant is the appellant before me. The first Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the said decision of the first Court. The present appeal has been filed against the said decision of the lower appellate Court.(3) The plaintiff and the defendant are adjacent owners. Their respective premises ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: [1959]37ITR257(KAR); [1959]37ITR257(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. Whether an assessee who commits default in the payment of the advance tax demanded under section 18A of the Income-tax Act can be made liable to pay a penalty under the provisions of section 46(I) of the Act is the interesting question that arises in these two writ petitions. 2. The material facts are these : 3. The petitioner who had been previously assessed to income-tax was required under the provisions of section 18A of the Income-tax Act, to pay the advance tax for the assessment year 1955-56. On this committing default in the payment of such advance tax, the Income-tax Officer, under the provisions of section 46(I) of the Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 490 by an order made by him or May 23, 1955. On the assessee continuing to be in default, the Income-tax Officer made a second order on September 3, 1955, imposing a further penalty of Rs. 1,000 under the provisions of Section 46(1A) of the Act. 4. These writ petitions are presented by the petitioner for certiorar...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chinnappa Vs. R. Arokiaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant21; AIR1959Mys21; (1958)36MysLJ651
ORDER1. The petitioner was the defendant in Original Suit No. 132/55 on the file of the Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, the Respondent was the plaintiff in that suit. The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Its. 896/- alleged to he due under a pronote executed by the defendant. In his written statement, the defendant alleged the payment of certain amounts on certain specified dates and pleaded that the debt due under the suit pronote had been discharged.An issue had been framed as to whether the discharge pleaded was true and the suit had been posted for evidence. Thereafter, the application I. A. No. II was filed by the defendant, purporting to he under Section 12 of the Indian Oaths Act, slip-ported by an affidavit stating that if the plaintiff should take a special oath in St. Mary's Church, at the Pulpit, in the presence of the Chief Priest that the amounts as set out in para 2 of the written statement had not been received by him (the plaintiff), then a decree might be passed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »