Karnataka Court February 1963 Judgments
B. Rama Bhatta Vs. B. Kodandarama Bhatta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mys332; ILR1963KAR536; (1963)2MysLJ253
ORDER1. The solitary question that arises for decision in this revision petition is whether the security bond tendered by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 herein, in O.S. No. 7 of 1957 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in pursuance of the Order of this Court in I. A. No. I, in R.F.A. No. 77 of 1962 on the file of this Court, requires to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the same requires to be registered. The petitioner has come up in revision against that order. This matter originally came up before our learned brother Hombe Gowda, J., sitting singly. His Lordship referred the matter to a Division Bench as there is sharp cleavage of judicial opinion.The question of law referred to us for decision is not free from difficulty. As mentioned by Hombe Gowda, J. on that question the judicial opinion is sharply divided. Further, unless we are thoroughly convinced that the view taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Vandse Gopalakrishna Shanabhogue Vs. Trasi Gavisandraya Laxman, Shanbh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant34; AIR1964Mys34
Hegde, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law as regards the scope of Section 37(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Code', on which judicial opinion is sharply divided.2. Till 1-8-1961, there was only one Subordinate Judge's Court in the District of 'South Kanara and that Court was located' at Mangalore. On 1-8-1961, a new Subordinate Judge's Court was established at Udipi by the State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 5 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 (Madras Act III of 1873), to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act' as in force in the Madras Area, as per Government Order No. HD. 38 CAD 51 dated 30-6-1961. By the Notification dated 24th July 1961, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Act, the Government fixed that the local limited over which the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Udipi shall have jurisdiction, shall comprise the Taluks of Coondapur, Udipi and Karkala of th...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopalaswamy and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC883(Kar)
ORDERSreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. It is seen from the Second Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, that there is differentiation between hydrogenated oils (item 35) and groundnut oil (item 47) in regard to the rates of tax. It is urged that groundnut oil does not cease to be so merely because it undergoes the process of hydrogenation and is sold as vanaspathi and that this is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 827). That was, however, in the context of interpreting rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, in which no distinction was made in the rules themselves between groundnut oil and hydrogenated groundnut oil and it was held that the essential commodity was the same. In the present context, however, the Legislature has made a distinction between the two, since both of them appear in the same Schedule and it cannot be said that the differentiation i...
Tag this Judgment!Kapgal Konda Gireanna and anr. Vs. Kapgal Konda Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant238; AIR1964Mys238; (1964)1MysLJ131
1. A moot point arises for determination in this second appeal as to whether notwithstanding Section 32 of the Arbitration Act defendants are entitled to take shelter under, and to rely upon, the terms of an unregistered award passed by the arbitrators.2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of lands and for mesne profits. The contesting defendants who are appellants before this Court alleged that a partnership shop in the name and style of 'Halkod Venkata Setty and Konda Manikya Setty' was run in Raichur of which the plaintiff, the defendants and one Halkod Gundaiah were partners. Halkod Gundaiah had eight annas share therein and in the remaining eight annas share plaintiff had five annas four pies share and the two defendants had two annas and eight pies share. This business was closed on account of disputes between the partners. The dispute was referred to the arbitrators as per the agreement marked Exhibit A-1 in the case dated Karthika Sudda Panchami of Jayanama Samvas...
Tag this Judgment!Settappa Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ112; (1963)IILLJ723Kant; (1963)2MysLJ28
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. The Complaint made in this case by the petitioner who was a driver in the Mysore Government Road Transport Department and who was dismissed by an order made by the general manager on 27 February, 1961, is that he has been punished more than once for the same act of misconduct. The question it is so. 2. On 7 March, 1960, the deputy general manager made an order suspending the petitioner for a period of seven days and the ground on which he was so suspended was that he had obstructed an octroi mutsaddi from performing his official duty and had belaboured him and his peon. It is seen that when the deputy general manager imposed that punishment on the petitioner, the petitioner had already been convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bellary, in Criminal Case No. 816 of 1958 by his judgment which he rendered on 23 November, 1959, of an offence of assault punishable under S. 353 of the Penal Code. The sentence imposed by the Magistrate on the petitioner was a fi...
Tag this Judgment!Rayappa and ors. Vs. Shivamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant1; AIR1964Mys1; 1964CriLJ49; ILR1963KAR490; (1963)2MysLJ60
ORDER1. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 5th October 1962, made by the District and Session Judge, Raichur, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 85/6 of 62. By that order, he confirmed the order of the District Magistrate, Raichur, who restored the complaint dismissed by him to its original number.2. The respondent made a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Raichur, against the accused who are the present petitioners, complaining that they have committed an offence punishable under Sections 494 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint came to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 16th July 1962 for non-appearance of the complainant, the effect of which is to discharge the accused under Section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 21st July 1962, the respondent made an application stating therein that she, on account of difficulties, could not appear in Court in...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Biyamma W/O Mohamad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mys326; 1963CriLJ656
Hegde, J.1. In this application under Section 561-A, Cri. P. C., the State seeks to get reversed our order made in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1962, wherein we set aside the order of conviction made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1961 and directed a retrial.2. The material facts are very few. In Sessions Case No. 49 of 1961. the two accused before the trial Court were tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. In that case, the first accused had to be provided with legal assistance by the State, as she was too poor to engage a lawyer to defend her. In the trial Court she was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A-2 was acquitted. As against her conviction and the sentence, she appealed to this Court from Jail. In this Court her appeal was handled by one of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Legal Aid Society. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for her represented to the Court that th...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Krishna Murthy Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mys329
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is operating his stage carriage on the route between Yedavani and Bangalore, the major part of which lies within the region of the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. On November 6, 1961 he made an application to that Regional Transport Authority for the extension of his route. What he wanted to do was to proceed from Yedavani to a point called Bheemanahalli via Devalapura in continuation of the existing route. That application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority and allowed. From that decision of the Regional Transport Authority respondent 4 who is an operator between Nagamangala and Bangalore and who opposed the petitioner's application for the extension of the route, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and that appeal was allowed. The petitioner's further appeal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was dismissed and so it is that he is be fore us now.2. The route which was common to the petitioner and respondent 4 bef...
Tag this Judgment!Siddalingappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant22; AIR1964Mys22
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner who is the owner of a land bearing Survey No. 228 in the village of Siramalli, in the district of Mandya, challenges in this case the proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of an area of 2 acres and 15 guntas of land out of that survey number. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on June 20, 1960, and, after the consideration of the objections produced by the petitioner to the proposed acquisition, and, after affording him the bearing enjoined by Section 5-A of the Act, the final notification declaring that the acquisition is for a public purpose was made under Section 6 of the Act on April 27, 1961. Before that final notification was made, by an order made by the Deputy Commissioner sanctioning under the Act on March 11, 1961, the objection preferred by the petitioner to the acquisition was overruled. It is seen thereafter and even before the notification under Section 6 was mad...
Tag this Judgment!United Transport Company Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant26; AIR1964Mys26; ILR1963KAR476
Govinda Bhat, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings started by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore pursuant to its notification dated 10th January, 1959, and the order granting permits or counter-signatures to respondents 3 to 10 in the said proceedings and for a further direction to grant permits to the petitioner's vehicles after considering his applications in accordance with law. One more relief prayed for to direct the first respondent to grant the certified copy of the order made in favour of respondents 3 to 10 has become unnecessary since the copy of the relevant resolution has been furnished subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.2. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 10 are carrying on transport business in Mangalore. The petitioner was plying eight lorries on Mangalore-Bombay route since the yea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›