Karnataka Court March 1959 Judgments
Singriah and ors. Vs. Ramanuja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant239; AIR1959Mys239; ILR1959KAR437
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1 and 8 to 17 in Original Suit No. 39 of 1950-51] on the file of the learned District Judge, Mysore. The first respondent is the plaintiff therein. 2. The suit is for partition and delivery of the plaintiff's 2/15th share in the plaint properties with past and future profits. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Naranappa the deceased brother of defendant 1. The genealogical table of the family is given in appendix 'A' of the plaint. The correctness of this genealogy is not disputed excepting the fact that the plaintiff is the adopted son ofNaranappa. Defendants 1 and 8 to 19 resisted the plaintiff's suit on various grounds. As many as 14 issues were framed in the suit. The trial court has decreed the plaintiff's suit awarding him 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties. Further it has allowed him profits from the date of the suit. But the determination of the quantum of profits has been left over for a separ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Antappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant250; AIR1959Mys250; 1959CriLJ1349
Sadasivayya, J. 1. Appellant Antappa had been charge-sheeted before the Magistrate at Yadgir for having committed the murder of his son Girappa, about four days prior to the Ugadi day of 1957. After the necessary preliminary enquiry, the said Magistrate framed a charge against the accused for an offence Punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and committed him to take his trial before the Court of Sessions at Gulbarga. The learned Sessions Judge of Gulbarga who tried the appellant, in Sessions Case No. 31/8 of 1957 or the file of his Court, modified the charge by adding thereto an additional charge for an offence under Section 201. of the I. P. C., for the accused having buried the corpse on the next day after the offence.The case of the prosecution was that Girappa who was the son of the accused person had been working somewhere at Bombay and that he used tobe coming now and then to his native village, namely Konakal of Yadgir Taluka and that on such occasions there used to be qu...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Mallappa Basagouda Biradar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant71; AIR1960Mys71; 1960CriLJ493
Sadasivayya, J. (1) This Criminal Revision Case arises out of a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts and circumstances which have led to this reference, are as follows:The First Class Magistrate of Jamkhandi by his order dated 4-12-1958 made in Juvenile (Crl.) Case No. 1/58 on the file of his Court committed the present respondent, who is a juvenile offender for taking his trial before the Court of Session, Bijapur, for offences under Sections 454 and 395 of the Indian penal Code and also for voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant, one Bhagavva, while committing the said other offences. The learned Sessions Judge, taking, the view that by virtue of Section 13 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948, the Magistrate himself should have proceeded with the trial of the juve ile offender, has made the present reference and has prayed that the order of commitment be quashed under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Laxman Bhimappa Tyapi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant260; AIR1959Mys260; 1959CriLJ1454; ILR1959KAR407
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrals, First Class, Ramdrug in C. C. No. 331 of 1957. By the afore-said order the learned Magistrate committed the four respondents and nine others to take their trial on charges under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149. 302. 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Coda and 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who perused the records and heard the arguments addressed to him on behalf of the respondents, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate committing the accused in C.C. No. 331 of 1957 to take their trial in the Court of Session without examining all the witnesses who had been cited in the charge-sheet as wit-nesses for the incident is illegal and therefore the order should be quashed.The learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1959
Reported in: [1960]39ITR24(KAR); [1960]39ITR24(Karn)
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioner before us was served with a notice under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 1950-51. The accounting year of the petitioner as shown in his books used to be from the first day of July of a year to the June 30 of the following year. For the accounting year July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1949, he was assessed under the Mysore Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1949-50. On the April 1, 1950, the Indian Income-tax Act came to be applied to Part B States and the Mysore Income-tax Act was repealed. As it will be necessary to be seen hereafter, in certain respects and for certain accounting years, to which I shall have to refer more fully in this judgment, the provisions of the Mysore Income-tax Act were kept in force. For the assessment year 1950-51, the petitioner was served with a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act calling upon him to file a return. On September 8, 1952. the petitioner filed ...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.G. Iyengar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Sou ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant26; AIR1961Mys26
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner before us was appointed as a probationary Assistant Engineer by the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1926. In June 1949, he was posted as Executive Engineer for the Bandsura Project Division in that State. In that division, he was in charge of a project known as the Khasapur Project.2. In 1951, the petitioner was called upon by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to explain some irregularities said to have been committed by him while he was in charge of that project. On 16-3-1955 he was asked by a notice to show cause why action should not be taken in regard to four charges which had been framed against him.3. In 1956, after an enquiry was held into that matter, charges 1 and 2 were dropped. In respect of the third charge, the petitioner was exonerated but the fourth charge was held to have been proved and it was decided by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sethuramachar and anr. Vs. N.S. Hirannayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant90; AIR1960Mys90
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) These Petitions are directed against the order of the State Transport Authority which was made in the following circumstances:(2) Applications were invited for a permit for stage carriage in the route between Mylara & Kottur, both in the District of Bellary. The Petitioners and six other application including respondent No. 4, applied for such permit. On 22-11-55, the said permit to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner on 26-12-55 produced his vehicle and other necessary certificates. On 4-1-1956 the permit was granted. Against the said Authority, Bangalore On 29-6-56 the appeal of respondent No. 4 in W. P. No. 5 of 1958 was allowed and a permit was ordered to be granted to the said respondent.Against that decision two appeals were filed to the Government, one by the petitioner in W. P. No. 5/58 and another by respondent No. 4 in W. P. No. 28/58. These appeals stood transferred to the Mysore Board of Revenue and the Mysore Board of Revenue on 2nd May, 1957...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalamma Vs. Batchni Mariyanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant140; AIR1960Mys140; ILR1959KAR403
ORDER(1) The short point for decision in this petition is whether the petition is maintainable in law. The plaintiff is the petitioner and she filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kolar, for refund of consideration amount under a sale deed, interest thereon and costs to be paid by the defendants and costs incurred by her in filing the suit totalling to Rs. 8,636-13-6. The suit was filed in forma pauperis. Along with the plaint she filed an application under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to institute the suit in forma pauperis on the ground that she did not have the wherewithal to pay the court-fee, that she had no property except the wearing appeal and hence, was not in a position to pay the requisite court-fee. This petition was opposed by the defendants who alleged that she was in a position to pay the requisite court-fee. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 23-1-1956 held that the plaintiff-petitioner was in a position...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narayana Kamath Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant33; AIR1960Mys33
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This application is directed against an order made by the Mysore State Transport Authority on 29-11-1958 canceling a permit granted to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.(2) The impugned order was made in the following circumstances :(3) By a notification issued under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore, invited applications for the grant of a State Carriage permit for one bus to City type with Central Gangway, seating capacity of not less than 30 seated passengers and of a later (not older than 1952) Model' to ply on the following route in Mangalore :'Hampankatta to Leewell Via Maidan North Road, Resarie Church Road, and Hoige Bazar (Town route).'There were fourteen applicants for that permit of whom the petitioner was one.(4) The Regional Transport Authority decided to grant the permit to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Shanbhogue Pranesha Rao Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant236; AIR1960Mys236; ILR1959KAR362
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) The petitioner before us was the owner of a wet land consisting of about 50 acres in Chitaldrug District. On 29-3-1955, the State Government of Mysore issued a notification under Section 6, sub-section (2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 fixing the maximum rent payable by the tenants to the landlords in the area in which the petitioner's land is situate. The petitioner before us challenges the validity of Section 6(2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, as also the validity of two other sections of the said Act, being section 5 and Section 17 thereof.(2) Section 5 of the Mysore Tenancy Act provides that no tenancy of land shall be for the period of less than five years and all tenancies in force on the date of commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be tenancies for a further period of five years from the date of commencement of the Act.(3) Sub-section (2) of the said section provides that notwithstanding any agreement, usage or law to the contrary, no tenancy ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »