Karnataka Court October 1961 Judgments
Gangavva Vs. Udachappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1964Kant107; AIR1964Mys107; (1963)2MysLJ403
1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is:'Whether the Acquisition Court can go behind a reference made by the Collector under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, if the application on which the reference has been made is beyond the period of limitation?'Section 14(1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act provides that:'Every person interested, who is displeased with the Taluqdar's award may, within two months from the date of receiving notice of the award, apply to the Taluqdar in writing to refer the case to the Court for determination whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, or to the amount of the compensation, or to the persons to whom it is payable or to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.'It is conceded that for our present purpose Section 14(1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act is in pari materia with the corresponding provisions in the Indian Land Acquisition Act, i.e. Section 18. Hence here...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Upparagatti Hanamanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ710
ORDERMir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. An unfortunate incident has resulted in the death of one Neerakallappa at the hands of the accused under a rather tragic circumstance. A certain quarrel took place on 18-6-1960 at about 6 P. M. between the parents of the deceased on one side and the accused's brother namely, Kanchappa on the other. During the course of that quarrel, the deceased Neerakallappa beat Kanchappa with a stick causing him an injury. Kanchappa was admitted into the Government Hospital at Kudligi as an in-patient on 19-6-1960. With the innocent purpose of finding out how Kanchappa was on the next day viz., on 20-6-1960 at about 10 a. m., the accused, the deceased and his father and a few other residents of Chikkakereyaginahalli called on the injured Kanchappa in the ward room of the hospital at Kudligi. There, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, the accused took an axe belonging to one of the visitors viz., one Maliyappa, which had been left outsid...
Tag this Judgment!Lingamma Vs. Putte Gowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mys1; ILR1962KAR161
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The following questions of law are referred by a Bench consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Hombe Gowda, J., to the Full Bench for decision as per Order dated12-12-1960:1. Is the person who files a suit for possession entitled to succeed unless he shows, in addition to title, that he has been in possession of the property within 12 years of the suit?2. Whether a case, in which it is proved that the plaintiff or his predecessor has not been in possession at all, is governed by Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation. Act (to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter)? and3. When a plaintiff seeks to eject persons from immovable property claimed by him on the ground that although they entered into such property as tenants, were in wrongful possession thereof but fails to prove that the defendants had entered into the property in such permissive character, is he bound to show that he or some of the persons under whom he claims have been in possession of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Henry Rodrigues and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ564
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge of South Kanara, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1960, on the file of his Court, me respondents 1 and 2, namely, Sri Henry Radrlgues and Sri B. Jayantha Shetty were the accused 1 and 2, respectively, in the said Sessions Case. The first accused was the editor and publisher of a monthly magazine called 'Crusader'; it is also known as '20th Century'. The second accused was the printer of the said Magazine. After obtaining from the State Government, the necessary sanction Under Section 196 of the Cr.PC the Special Public Prosecutor laid a complaint before the Additional 6ub Magistrate of Mangaiore, to the effect that in the issues of the above said magazine of August 1958,' October 1958 and January 1959, there were certain articles Which were insulting to the Feligion and religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics and that the accused acted with a malicious intention in publishing and printing...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Shama Rao Vs. Patel Kanake Gowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant203; AIR1962Mys203
(1) This Second Appeal involves the construction of proviso (1),(2) and (3) to section 92 of the Evidence Act. The question arises in this way. On October 28, 1952, defendant 1 executed in favour of the plaintiff a sale deed (Exhibit I) , by which he purported to convey to the plaintiff a house which is the subject-matter of the suit for a sum of Rs. 800/-. The sale deed was presented for registration by the plaintiff on March 14, 1953 and was registered on April 25, 1953 by the Sub-Registrar although the plaintiff was not present before the Sub-Registrar on that day. Defendant 1 who appeared before the Sub-Registrar admitted execution of the document, but nevertheless pleaded that the document should not be registered amount by the plaintiff. The translation of what he stated before the Sub-Registrar in Kannada reads:'I have no objection to the registration of the document if I am paid the consideration. Since the plaintiff has not appeared before me and paid the consideration , I wil...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: [1963]48ITR367(KAR); [1963]48ITR367(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in Mysore by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act involves the interpretation of clause (i) of the proviso to Item B of Part I of Schedule I to the Finance Act, 1955, which reads : THE FIRST SCHEDULE.(See Section 2)PART IRates of Income-tax* * *B. In the case of every company -Rate SurchargeOn the whole Four annas in One-twentieth of theof total income the rupee rate specified in thepreceding column : Provided that in the case of a company which, in respect of its profits liable to tax under the Income-tax Act for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, has made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment within the territory of India, of the dividends payable out of such profits, and has deducted super-tax from the dividends in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3D) of section 18 of the Act - (i) Where the total income, as ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kuppuswami Naicker Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Ivth Additional Circ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC322(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions is a dealer in iron and steel which are among the goods described as declared goods in the Fourth Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1957, on the last purchase of which a single point tax is leviable on the dealer in the State under section 5(4). Prior to the coming into force of the Act on 1st October, 1957, the point of levy was the first sale which was changed to the last purchase under the aforesaid provisions. 2. The petitioner was purchasing the goods both from the Bhadravati Iron and Steel Works situated within the State and from others outside the State. Even after the coming into force of the Act, the Iron and Steel Works, Bhadravati, which is a Government concern continued to collect from the petitioner along with the price, tax calculated as if the levy continued to be at the point of sale. When the petitioner protested stating that no such levy could be made after the Act came into force on 1st October...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Sampath Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant192; AIR1962Mys192
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner who is a chemist and druggist carrying on business in the sales or medicinal and toilet preparation among others questions the validity of a notification made by the State Government on April 8, 1958 under Ss. 17, 18 and 24 of the Mysore Excise Act (Mysore Act V of 1901) by which it prescribed among other matters the license fee payable by chemists and druggists and the license fee for the sale of spirituous preparations. Those two entries in the notification read:__________________________________________________________________________________'SL. Rate of levy from 1stated JulyNo. Item Strength 1958__________________________________________________________________________________ * * * Rs. Np.15 License to Chemist Per year fee 20.00& Druggists.* * * *23 License fee for sale of Per annum 20.00spirituous Preparations.* * * *'__________________________________________________________________________________The preamble to this notification reads:'In ex...
Tag this Judgment!Dhulappa Shivarai Molke Vs. Krishnabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant172; AIR1962Mys172
(1) In these three matters pending examination before being admitted to register, the Appeal Examiner has raised the question whether the Second Appeals sought to be filed are maintainable.(2) The original proceedings out of which these matter arise were petitions for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act ( Central Act No. 25 of 1955) before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum. After the conclusion of those proceedings , there were appeals under Section 28 of the Act presented to the District Court. The proposed Second Appeal are directed against the decisions of the appellate Court. (3) The appellants claim that the Second Appeals are maintainable under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriages Act reads as follows : ' All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceedings under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of the original civil jurisdiction are...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Mysore Board of Wakfs, Banglore Vs. Mahbood Ali Maniyar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant128; AIR1962Mys128
ORDER(1) The short point to be decided in this petition is whether the Mysore Muslim Wakf Board is to be brought on record as a necessary and proper party interested in the proceedings under the provisions of Section 145 Cri. P.C.(2) The facts leading up to this petition are briefly as follows: A mosque in Gulbarga town called the Jail Road Mosque and the properties attached thereto, it is undisputed, are the Wakf properties. The members of the Party I before the trial Magistrate alleged that they are in actual possession, management and control of the Mosque and its properties and as such, are entitled to continue in the said management, while the members of Party II contend that it is they who have got the actual control and management of the Mosque and its properties having been appointed by the Mysore Muslim Wakf Board. The third party in the intervene and that party is none other than the Muslim Wakf Board itself. It filed a petition before the trial Magistrate requesting that it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »