Karnataka Court December 1959 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.
D. Veerappa Vs. Bangarappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant297; AIR1960Mys297
ORDER(1) The auction-purchaser in R. E. P. 484 of 1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Shimoga, is the petitioner in this Court. The Court sale held in that case was set aside by the trial Court on an application filed by one of the judgment-debtors under Rule 90 of Order 21, C.P.C., on the ground that the sale in question was vitiated by material irregularity and fraud and it has occasioned substantial loss to the judgment-debtors. The decision of the trial Court was confirmed by the learned District Judge at Shimoga in Mis. Appeal No. 2/1957. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner, the Court-auction-purchaser, ahs come up in revision to this Court under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Order 21, Rule 90.(2) It is argued that the executing Court was wrong in entertaining the application for setting aside the sale as the same was long barred by time. Admittedly, the said application was filed more than 30 days from the date of the sale in question. But the re...
S. Melagiriyappa and ors. Vs. Lalithamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant152; AIR1961Mys152
1. This is an appeal by the four defendants in Original Suit No. 11 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Bangalore, directed against the decree passed therein for partition of family properties. The plaintiff Lalithamma filed the suit claiming her share to which she was entitled under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Hindu Law Women's 'Rights Act, Mysore Act X of 1933. The plaintiffs husband Hanumiah and the 1st defendant Malugiriappa are sons of one Settappa.They had another brother called Arasappa. The three brothers were living together as members of a joint Hindu family governed By Mitakshara Law. Arasappa took his share and left the family on the 28th Match, 1938, on which date he executed what is described in the evidence as a release deed, Ex. P-l; he appears to have taken a house and certain minor items as and for his share. Thereafter the two brothers Hanumiah and Melugiriappa continued undivided,Hanumiah died issueless in September, 1943....
H.M. Shantanna Vs. the State Transport Authority in Mysore, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant141; AIR1960Mys141
Narayana Pai, J.(1) This Writ Petition is directed against an order of the State Transport Authority, Mysore, rejecting as time-barred a revision application filed by the petitioner before it under the provisions of S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The order of the Regional Transport Authority, Tumkur, against which the petitioner had preferred that revision application was dated 4-2-1959. The petitioner however was not given notice of that order and was not aware of its having been passed by the Regional Transport Authority; he applied for a certified copy thereof on 6-2-1959, which copy was delivered to him on 11-4-1959.It is common ground that if 30 days the period of limitation provided under S. 64-A is counted from the date the copy of the order was delivered to the petitioner the revision application before the State Transport Authority was within time. It is also common ground that before the order copy was actually delivered to the petitioner the order had not been communicat...
Narayan Gangadhar Deshpande and ors. Vs. Rango Krishna Dixit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant175; AIR1960Mys175; ILR1960KAR280
ORDER(1) This revision petition raises an interesting question of law. The petitioners obtained a decree for specific performance in R. O. S. No. 61/47, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gokak. As per the terms of the decree, the plaintiffs were required to deposit the balance of consideration within the time fixed therein. But, they failed to deposit the amount in question. After the date fixed in the decree, the respondent applied to the Court under clause (c) of S. 35 of the Specific Relief Act, praying that the decree passed may be rescinded as the plaintiffs had not made the deposit in question.The learned trial Judge accepted that application and vacated the decree. As against that order, the plaintiffs went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, Belgaum. In that appeal, they were required to pay ad valorem Court fee on Rs. 3000/-, i.e., the valuation (for the purpose of jurisdiction) put on the plaint in R. O. S. No. 61/1947. The petitioners had affixed a st...
Raghoba Santanna Naik Vs. Shaba Nalo Naik and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant187; AIR1960Mys187; ILR1960KAR568
(1) The true scope of S. 19 of the Limitation Act arises for consideration in this case.(2) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of law that has been argued before me are; the first defendant executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on 28-7-1925 as per Ex. 1 for a sum of Rs. 700/-. in that mortgage deed, he included ten items of properties; a period of 2 years was fixed for the payment of the principal amount; in other words the principal amount was due on 28-7-1927; on 3-3-1938, the mortgagor (defendant 1) sold items Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 to the second defendant; after selling those properties to the second defendant, the first defendant renewed the mortgage under Ex. 1 as per Ex. 34 on 24-7-1939; in the renewal also he included all the ten items of property which was originally included in Ex. 1.The present suit is brought on the basis of Ex. 34 and the same was instituted on 16-10-1946. It is clear that the claim arising under Ex. 1 was barred by ...
New Krishna Bhavan Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, No. Iv Circle (Addl.) B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant3; AIR1961Mys3; ILR1960KAR267
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The Petitioner before us is one of the Partners of Hotel New Krishna Bhawan, Malleswaram Bangalore. On 23-4-1958, he was served with a notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, calling upon him to produce the account books, vouchers etc., in support of his return in respect of the year 1956-57. The petitioner's contention be fore us in this petition is that in view of the fact that proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended by Amending Act 25 of 1954, was held to he unconstitutional by a decision of the High Court of Mysore dated 27-9-1956, the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales tax. In order to understand this contention it would bo necessary to set out the material provisions of Section 3 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended by Act 25 of 1954. They are as follows :3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act:(a) every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year; and(b) th...
Narayana Subraya Bhat and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant157; AIR1960Mys157; 1960CriLJ838; ILR1960KAR261; [1981]127ITR862(KAR); [1981]127ITR862(Karn)
ORDER(1) The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. Both the petitioners have been convicted under S. 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- each, in default to undergo S. I. for four days, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Sirsi, in Criminal Case No. 1649 of 1957 on his file. They have come up in revision to this Court.(2) Sri B. V. Krishnaswamy Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners formulated a threefold attack against the judgment of the Court below. According to him, the search conducted in this case is illegal as the Searching Officer did not get himself searched before entering the premises to be searched and consequently the seizures made should not be taken into consideration. His second objection is that as there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sirsi, who issued the warrant under S. 6 of 'the Act' has b...
K.B. Subbaya Shetty and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant146; AIR1960Mys146; 1960CriLJ837
ORDER(1) This petition is directed against the order made by the learned Ex-Officio 1st Class Magistrate of Sakleshpur under Section 117(3) of the Commissioner. P. C. In Commissioner. Mis. No. 1/59-60 on his file. In that case, at the instance of the police, proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the petitioners. Even before issuing notices to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate directed that they be bound over under Section 117(3) of the Cr.P.C. This order appears to be clearly illegal.(2) Under Section 112 of the Cr.P.C.-'When a Magistrate, acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.'Under sub-section (1) of Section 117-'When an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›