Karnataka Court September 1962 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.
Gowdappa Gowda and ors. Vs. Tippangowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ111
ORDERT.K. Tukol, J.1. The petitioners before this Court have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Sub-Divisionaj Magistrate, Bagalkot Division, Under Section 139-A (2j of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. There is a dispute between the parties to tune petition regarding the right of way as shown in the has sketch enclosed to the petition as regards certain Survey Numbers and paths leading to different villages in the vicinity. The petitioners alleged that the respondents has put up obstructions' and had prevented them from using truer way. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the opponents to show cause. The opponents appeared and denied the existence of way.3. Section 139-A (1) lays down that when a party against-whom an order has been made, appears before the Magistrate the latter shall question him as to whether he denies-the existence of any public right in respect of the way and then if he does so, the Magistrate shall enquire into the matter bef...
income-tax Officer, Bangalore I and anr. Vs. Mysore Spun Silk Mills Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1962
Reported in: ILR1961KAR434; [1963]50ITR672(KAR); [1963]50ITR672(Karn)
1. The applicant Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle A, Bangalore, had made a claim for preferential payment to him of a sum of Rs. 14,503.80 nP. from the assets of the company in liquidation. The claim is wholly rejected by the liquidator by his order dated 18th January, 1962. In this application, the applicant appeals against the order of the liquidator rejecting his claim. 2. The facts and circumstances, on the strength of which the claim had been made, are briefly the following : The company had entered into a contract with a firm of builders called 'South India Builders' for construction of certain buildings. The said firm of builders had defaulted in payment of income-tax due by them, for recovery of which the Income-tax Officer, Bellary, who was the appropriate assessing authority in respect of the said firm, issued to the company on 11th February, 1953, a notice under the provisions of section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the company to pay ...
Haribhagvandas Parasram and Co. Vs. A.D. Thaker
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys107
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order made by the Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore, allowing an application made by the defendant for the amendment of issues Nos. 3 and 4.The suit was one on a pronote. According to the recitals in the suit pronote, cash consideration had been paid. But in the plaint, it had been pleaded that the pronote had been executed for the money due from the defendant. The defendant admitted in his written statement, the execution of the suit pronote; he pleaded that it had been executed by him under certain unusual circumstances and that it was not supported by consideration. Then, the plaintiff stated in his reply statement that the defendant who had been an employee under the plaintiff had collected certain amounts due to the plaintiff and that the defendant having utilised the same for himself, executed the suit pronote for the said moneys. Amongst other contentions, the defendant had pleaded in his written statement...
Subba Rao (M.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR972; (1963)IILLJ323Kant; (1963)1MysLJ434
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner is a shanbhogue in the district of South Kanara, and by an order made by the Assistant commissioner on 1 February, 1961 he was placed under suspension pending completion of a disciplinary proceeding which has contemplated against him. Until 18 August, 1961 that disciplinary proceeding was not commenced with the result that the petitioner issued a notice to the Assistant Commissioner on that date demanding reinstatement. That demand having been not complied with, this application has been presented to us in which the petitioner seek a mandamus to the Assistant Commissioner directing his reinstatement. 2. Mr. Hegde complains before us that although the order of suspension was made as long ago as on 1 February, 1961 no charge has been framed against the petitioner until today with the result that no disciplinary proceeding against him has yet commenced. His next submission was that under the provisions of rule 10(6) of the Mysore Civil Services (Cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›