Karnataka Court July 1960 Judgments
State of Mysore Vs. Billavara Kukkappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant312; AIR1960Mys312; 1960CriLJ1475; ILR1960KAR987
Sadasivayya, J. (1) In this appeal by the State, we are concerned with the correctness of an order of acquittal in a prosecution for an alleged offence under Section 4 of the Coorg prohibition Act, 1956. On the right of 16-3-1958, the accused was seen to be staggering about and not able to walk properly, near a Cinema Theatre at Conicoppal. He was taken to the Civil Assistant Surgeon who examined him and was at the opinion that the accused was intoxicated. He found that the breath of the accused was smelling of liquor, that the accused was unsteady in his speech and gait, that his speech was incoherent and that his pupils were contracted. He issued the certificate Ex. P-1 in which he stated that for these reasons, he was of the opinion that the accused was intoxicated and was completely under the influence of alcohol. The accused who had pleaded not guilty, stated in the course of his examination, that he had drank ginger beer and he denied that he was in a state of intoxication. The a...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rama Rao Manay Vs. R.A. Mundkur and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant313; AIR1960Mys313
ORDER(1) Vires of Rule 4(a) of the Rules framed under Sec 25 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951(Mysore Act No. XXX of 1951)(which shall be hereinafter called the ''Act') comes up consideration in this revision petition.(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner is the landlord in respect of House No. 3, Malton Road, Civil Station, Bangalore; the said premises fell vacant sometime in January 1960; the petitioner reported that vacancy to the Rent controller (who shall be hereinafter called 'controller') on 16-1-1960; the Controller intimated that vacancy to the deputy Commissioner at Bangalore who wrote back to the Controller asking him to allot that house to respondent 1(who shall be hereinafter referred to as respondent) who belongs to the Indian Police Service and at present serving in the Department of Efficiency Audit, Bangalore; in compliance with this intimation, the controller allotted the premises in question to the respondent; the allotment ...
Tag this Judgment!The Premier Life and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H. Krishna Sheet a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant171; AIR1962Mys171
1. The appellant Company did not choose to intervene in the proceedings in the Court below although admittedly notice of their institution was given to it. Mr. Bheemacharya's contention that the company can in this appeal question the correctness of the finding of the Court below that the accident happened in the manner pleaded by the plaintiff or its estimate of the damages awarded to him, it clearly opposed to the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which exhaustively enumerate the grounds on which the company could have defended the action in the Court below and could sustain its appeal in this Court. 2. Nor can Mr. Bheemacharya's contention that the company should be absolved from liability to pay damages on the ground that the motor vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed driver succeed, since it entirely failed to establish that there was any condition attached to the contract of insurance prohibiting the driving of the motor vehicle by a person who was not d...
Tag this Judgment!Sivappa Vs. Pampanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant83; AIR1961Mys83; ILR1960KAR959
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. A point of considerable importance arises in this appeal. The facts which are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the same are as follows:2. The appellant before us was the judgment-debtor. The decree which was obtained against him was for the recovery of Rs. 1516-2-0. The decree-holder after obtaining the said decree applied tor execution of the same. The appellant filed objection to the said execution. His objection was that the decree was not executable as the court which passed it had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree. The facts on which the said contention is based are as follows: The original suit was dismissed for default.Thereafter a petition was filed for restoration before the said court. That petition was allowed and the case of the appellant is that it was allowed without any notice to him. Against that order allowing the petition a revision petition was filed to theHigh Court of Hyderabad. That revision petition was admitted and an int...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Nanapur Sanna Hannur Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant325; AIR1960Mys325; 1960CriLJ1645; ILR1960KAR967
(1) The respondent in this appeal was the president of a Co-operative Society called 'The Tape Weavers' Co-operative Society', Tekkalakota and upon information laid by the said Society he was prosecuted and tried by the First Class Magistrate, Bellary on three charges viz. that he having received in respect of the amounts due to the said society, a sum of Rs. 23/- from one Hussainamma, a sum of Rs. 50/- from the Hussain one Sab and another sum of Rs. 50/- from the mother of one Nabi Saheb, misappropriated the same to his own use. (2) Originally the complaint appears to have been made both under Section 406 as well as under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was given up on the ground that the respondent who was only the President of the Co-operative Society could not be described as a public servant. Hence the trial proceeded only for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) During the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Subhappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ653
A. Narayana Pai, J. 1. The respondents before us, five in number, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Mysore Sessions Case No. 3 of 1958, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were all acquitted by the order dated 19th day of April, 1958. This appeal is by the State against the said order of acquittal.2. The case for the prosecution was that early in the morning of 2nd December, 1957, Puttaswamappa, a resident of Chandravadi village, had been to the neighbouring village of Nellithalapurada house to fetch some jute seeds for himself and a small pup for his 9 year-old child Mallesh, and was returning to his village Chandravadi accompanied by Varadanaika carrying jute seeds in a gunny bag and Mada carrying the pup in a basket, and that at that time the 5 accused acting with the common object of murdering the said Puttaswamappa did commit his murder; the first 3 accused are said to have taken actual ...
Tag this Judgment!Satappa Shidappa Shintre and anr. Vs. Hirachand Atmaram Shah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant54; AIR1961Mys54
1. These two Second Appeals arises out of an order made by the Joint Civil Judge, Chikodi, on 7-7-1956 in two Execution Cases, namely, Regular Darkhast Nos. 1154 and 1155 of 1941 on the file of his Court. The orders made on that date are as follows :'The D. A. R. Act is not in force. The property will have to be sold through Court. The contentions at Ex. 113 overruled. Order Execution to proceed. Issue sale warrant and sale proclamation.' Against these two orders in the two execution cases, appeals had been preferred to the Extra Assistant Judge at Belgaum. That learned Judge took the view that the appeals were not maintainable. But, the High Court as per its judgment in Second Appeals Nos. 540 and 541 of 1956, held that the view taken by the Assistant Judge was wrong and that the appeals were maintainable: consequently, the High Court remanded both the cases to the Assistant Judge directing him to decide the appeals, on their merits.After remand, the Assistant Judge heard these two ap...
Tag this Judgment!Deveeramma and ors. Vs. M.S. Nanjappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant150; AIR1961Mys150
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by one Nanjappa to the District Judge, Mysore, for the grant of a probate or letters of administration to him in respect of a will alleged to have been executed by one Badami Nanjappa on July 2, 1946. Badami Nanjappa who was a resident of the City of Mysore died on October 9, 1950. He had three wives and defendant 1 was the only wife who survived him. His two other wives had predeceased him.His first wife Channamma who was one of those wives who predeceased him, left a daughter, defendant 7. His second wife Subbamma had nochildren. Defendant 1 Deveeramma is his third wife. By his third wife Badami Nanjappa had seven children. Two of them were sons and the other five were daughters. Out of his two sous, defendant 2 is the only surviving son. One of his daughters Neelamma died and the remaining four daughters are alive today.2. Defendant 2 is Basavaraju, son of Badam Nanjappa by his third wife. Defendants 3 to 6 ere his dau...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Sridharan and ors. Vs. M.L. Narasimhaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant320; AIR1960Mys320
ORDER(1) This revision petition is directed against the order made by the District Judge of Mysore on I. A. No. 3 in a partition suit brought by the respondent against the other members of the family. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 made an application I. A. 3 in that suit that three more properties should also be made the subject-matter of partition and that two more persons should be added as defendants. The Court below refused that application and it is against that order that the petitioners complain.(2) On behalf of the plaintiff who opposed that application, it was argued by Mr. Venkateshamurthy that the plaintiff could not be compelled to convert his suit for partition of only some properties into a suit for a fuller partition or to add parties whom he did not desire.(3) Mr. Narayana Rao, on behalf of the petitioners, contended that in a partition suit a defendant was entitled to ask for a larger partition and for the addition of parties in whose presence it should be made.(4) It is true ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Rao (H.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ591Kant
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned District Magistrate of South Kanara in S.T.C. No. 4 of 1959 on his file, for three offences under the Factories Act (which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act'). Firstly he was convicted under Section 92 read with Section 6 and Rule 5(3) of the rules framed under the 'Act' (hereinafter called the 'rules') for having carried on the manufacturing process in a 'Factory' without, obtaining a licence under the 'Act,' and the 'Rules' from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Mangalore; secondly under Section 92 read with Section 112 and Rule 104 for not maintaining a register of accidents and dangerous occurrences in the prescribed form--Form 26); and lastly under Section 92 read with Section 112 and Rule 105 for having failed to maintain a bound inspection book as prescribed by Forms 7, 28 and 29. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge of South Kanara confirmed the convictions, though he modified the sentences of fine impose...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›