Karnataka Court November 1963 Judgments
In Re: Varthakavardhini Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1963
Reported in: [1964]34CompCas163(Kar)
1. In the list of debtors filed by the liquidator on June 30, 1954, the two debts of which repayment is claimed from the aforesaid R. Chikkaveeranna are items 45 and 46, viz. : '45. Hand-loan dated December 31, 1936, by Yelandur Shivachar late Katte Malelavadi Rachappa's Rs. 5,500. 46. do. dated June 2, 1937, for Rs. 250.' The said Chikkaveeranna died on August 22, 1956. Hence the liquidator took out notice to his widow, Subbamma. The said Subbamma in her affidavit of objections stated that she had no knowledge of the loans taken by her deceased husband and put the liquidator to strict proof. She also objected to the claim as barred by time, firstly, because she is sought to be impleaded as a legal representative nearly eight years after the death of her husband without any application for setting aside the abatement or to condone the delay in impleading her, and, secondly, because the original cause of action against her husband was barred by limitation and there is nothing in the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Commissioner K.S. Naik Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1963
Reported in: [1964(9)FLR291]; (1964)ILLJ699Kant
ORDER1. This is an appeal under rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with S. 457(3) of the Companies Act of 1956 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Mysore at Bangalore against the order of the official liquidator dated 29 August, 1963 to the extent it rejected the appellant's claim for preferential payment in respect of a sum of Rs. 2,414.22 out of his total claim of Rs. 79,386.74 being the contribution and charges payable by the company in liquidation under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme thereunder made applicable to the company. 2. Notice of admission of proof in form 70 prescribed under the rules dates 29 August, 1963 was served on the appellant on 31 August, 1963. The appeal was filed on 4 October, 1963, thirteen days beyond the time prescribed under rule 164. The appellant prays for condonation of this delay for the reasons set out in Para. 9 of his affidavit. 3. Two reasons are stated therein. The first is that the liquidator d...
Tag this Judgment!Vedavathi Williams Vs. Rama Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant265; AIR1964Mys265; ILR1963KAR1122; (1964)1MysLJ122
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This appeal concerns a claim to enhanced maintenance. There were two brothers Deepu and Cheradappa. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises is the widow of Cheradappa. Cheradappa and the plaintiff had ason Ramdas who died quite a long time ago. O. S. No. 76 of 1940 in the court of the District Munsiff, Mangalore, wasa suit brought by the plaintiff after the death of her husband and son against Deepu for maintenance. On April 1, 1942 a decree was made in that suit by which the plaintiff was awarded maintenance at Rs. 5/- a month and a charge for that maintenance was created upon the propertiesin the possession of Deepu.2. On August 6, 1942 Deepu settled the property on which the charge was created in that way on his niece whois defendant 1, and the property so settled was valued at Rs. 3000/-. Deepu's widow and defendant 1 sold that property consisting of two separate houses to a certain Meenakshi on June 11, 1945 under Exhibit B-2. The sale wasfor R...
Tag this Judgment!The Century Bank Ltd. Vs. M. Marlingappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Kant68; AIR1965Mys68
ORDER(1) These two revision petitions are filed under Section 10 of the Mysore Small Cause Courts Act, against the judgments of the Court of the Small Causes, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 1168/60 and S.C. No. 1739/61.(2) The petitioner in these two revision petitions, the Century Bank Ltd., Bangalore, (Under voluntary liquidation) represented by the joint Liquidator, was the plaintiff in both the suits before the lower Court. These two suit were filed for recovery of Rs. 450/- and Rs. 230-09 nP. due from the defendants in those suits respectively towards the amounts borrowed by them from the Bank.(3) The defendants in those two suits (who are respondents before this Court) raised a preliminary objection that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the two suits inasmuch as those two suits relate to claims made by a banking company under liquidation. The trial Court tried this question as a preliminary question and held that it had no jurisdiction to try the two suits. It further...
Tag this Judgment!Govindagouda Narayanagouda Vs. Madhava Rao Narasinga Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant277; AIR1964Mys277; ILR1964KAR125; (1964)1MysLJ243
ORDER1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Dharwar dated 6-3-1962 in Special Dharkhast No. 23 of 1959 (Execution Petition) on his file. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case may be briefly stated as follows: --A Civil Suit for partition (Civil Suit No. 21 of 1954 on the file of the Civil Judge, S. D. Dharwar) was filed by the guardian of the plaintiff Waman Aswatharao Patil who was minor at the time of the institution of the said suit. That suit related to partition of moveable and immoveable properties with relief for recovery of possession. It appears that suit ended on a compromise and on the basis of the compromise, a consent decree was passed on 25-6-1956. In that suit (C. S. No. 21 of 1954) the respondent Madhavarao Narasingarao Patil was the power of attorney holder on behalf of the guardian of the minor Plaintiff. In the compromise decree, one of the terms of the decree was ...
Tag this Judgment!MainuddIn Alisab Kazi Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: [1965(10)FLR159]; (1964)IILLJ615Kant; (1964)1MysLJ188
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bijapur, in R.A. No. 140 of 1958, confirming that of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapnr, in Civil Suit No. 316 of 1957. 2. The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 316 of 1957 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur, for a declaration that the order of dismissal, dated 21 November 1955, passed against him by the District Superintendent of Police, Bijapur, is null and void and that he should be deemed to be still in service. The facts leading to the filling of the suit may shortly be stated as follows. 3. The plaintiff was a head constable and he was posted to Bagewadi on 2 June 1952 where he was serving till his final dismissal from service on 21 November 1955. He had been to Bijapur in the last week of April 1955 for attending the refresher course which was completed on 1 May 1955. 4. A criminal case was filed against him for an offence punishable u...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Omana Muchandi Vs. Ramachandra Omana Muchandi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant232; AIR1964Mys232; (1964)1MysLJ101
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In Special Suit No. 42 of 1959 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, there was a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,520/- towards mesne profits and costs payable by him. From that decree, an appeal was preferred to this Court and is still pending. In an execution application presented by the decree-holder, there was an order made by the executing court on September 19, 1960, that the property of the judgment-debtor which had been attached should be sold. On March 10, 1961, the judgment-debtor made an application to the executing court which is also the court which passed the decree for a slay of the sale under the provisions of Rule 6 (2) of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Meanwhile, the judgment-debtor had also made an application for an order that the execution of the decree under appeal should be stayed, and, an interim order was made by this Court on February 7, 1981, on that application under Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Malikajappa Bhimappa Bennur Vs. Bhimappa Kashappa, Parasannavar and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1966Kant86; AIR1966Mys86; (1965)2MysLJ229
(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Judge, Belgium in Civil Appeal No.51 of 1957 on his file.(2) The facts relevant to the disposal of this second appeal may be stated briefly as follows: The appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule house and a court yard situated to the south of C.T.S. No. 1714 at Ramdrug against the defendant who are respondents in this second appeal. The plaintiff's suit was that the suit property belonged to him; a sale transaction with regard to the same was settled between the parties; the plaintiff executed an agreement deed exhibit 44 dated 26-2-1953 by which he agreed to sell the property to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 1,800 and in pursuance thereof an earnest money of Rs. 400 was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. It was stated in the agreement deed that the balance amount i.e., Rs. 1400 will be paid within six months from the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Sheshagiri Rao and anr. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition and Reha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Kant222; AIR1965Mys222
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) On April 15, 1952 the first appellant in this appeal obtained from Government a grant of 11 acres and 38 guntas of land which is situate in the village of Hebbyle in the District of Shimoga. The grant was made in form appendix E and to the printed conditions of the grant was added one more stipulation which was written in ink and which was to the effect that in the event of the Government requiring the land for any reason whatsoever, the grantee should surrender the land to the Government without claiming any compensation.(2) On January 11, 1958, there was a notification published under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing an acquisition of this land. By a further notification made under S. 17(4) Government dispensed with adherence to the provisions of S. 5A of the Act, and pursuant thereto possession of the land was also taken from the appellants. It should be mentioned here that the second appellant is the undivided brother of the first appellant.(3) When t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›