Karnataka Court June 1963 Judgments
Keshavayya (V.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1963
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ588Kant
ORDERHombe Gowda, J.1. The petitioner, V. Keshavayya, was working as a first division clerk in the Office of the Director of Sericulture in Bangalore. On the basis of the information that the petitioner was demanding a sum of Rs. 20 as illegal gratification from one Hombe Gowda, patel, Avaregere village, Ramanagaram taluk, to show an official favour in connexion with the grant of a sericulture loan to him, a trap was arranged and the petitioner was found having accepted a sum of Rs. 20 from Hombe Gowda in the Vishnu Bhavan Hotel, Kempe Gowda Road, Bangalore City, on 28 January, 1956. After necessary preliminary investigation the Deputy superintendent of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Measures submitted his report to the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The special Officer, being convinced that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, nominated Sri H. N. Shankarappa, Gazetted Assistant to the Special Officer...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Tendolkar and ors. Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant75; AIR1964Mys75
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is an appeal, by three of the Directors of the Supreme Bank of India, Limited, Belgaum (in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', from an Order of Mr. Justice Narayana Pal made in the exercise of the Original Jurisdiction of the Court, directing three of the Directors and the Auditor of the Company to appear and give evidence on oath before the Court in the misfeasance proceedings Initiated by the Official Liquidator against the Directors and other officers of the Company. The question for determination in this appeal is as to whether that order is not legal and valid. For a correct appreciation of the contentions urged on both sides, it is necessary to state briefly the circumstances under which the Order was made.2. The Company was ordered to be wound up bythe High Court of Bombay on 16-4-1956. Consequent onthe Re-Organization of States, the winding up proceedingsof the Company pending in the High Court of Bombay on1-11-1956 were transferred t...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Mookamma Alias Yellamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mys182; 1964CriLJ316; (1963)2MysLJ99
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Case No. 8 of 1962 is a reference made by the Second Magistrate, Chitradurga, In C.C. No. 3512/61 on his file. The circumstances of the case are as follows :-The Thuruvanur police submitted a charge sheet to the Court on 26-10-1961 against the accused Mookamma alias Vellamma for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 10-10-61 at about noon when the accused was crossing the stream known as 'Janigehal'a' near Chickondanahally village she was carrying a bundle of fodder on her shoulder, the deceased Ismail, aged about 10 years, tried to snatch a stalk of hay from the bundle and the accused, getting enraged by this act of the deceased, hit him with the sickle which she had in her hand on his chest as a result of which the deceased sustained a bleeding injury and fell in the stream. Immediately thereafter a companion of his, Munavarulla by name, dragged the injured boy to the shore and poured water into his mouth. Soon afterwards Ismail breat...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumappa Vs. Kondappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mys195; 1964CriLJ319; (1963)2MysLJ3
N. Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. This revision petition is by the First Party in a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dropping the proceedings as the learned Magistrate found that the two contending parties were in joint possession of the land in dispute and withdrawing the order of attachment of the land. The circumstances of the case are as follows:2. The land in dispute originally belonged to two brothers Angadi Munisamappa and Angadi Kanakiah who granted a lease of the land under a registered lease deed dated 15-3-1956 to the two persons who are now the contesting parties, namely, Hanumappa and Kondappa, the latter being the son-in-law of the former. Later on the owners executed a registered usufructuary mortgage in favour of their tenants to secure a sum of Rs. 7,000/-advanced on the mortgage. Some time later, that is on 17-9-1959, the owners sold the land to the mortgagees. According to the first party (the present Petitioner), the lease, the mor...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ganesh and ors. Vs. K. Venkataswara Iyer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ100
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. This revision petition arises from a decision of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Nanjangud; in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No 4 of 1963. That was a proceeding' under Section 145 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court below has issued a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cri.P.C. The legality of this order is Challenged in those proceedings.2. Oh the facts admitted by the respondent herein, his petition under Section 145, Cri.P.C. as well as his verification statement, no case is made out under Section 145, Cri.P.C. Even' according to the respondent the 3rd member of the second party (3rd' petitioner herein) is in actual possession of the properties in dispute. The respondent's grievance is1 that though the third petitioner has taken on lease those properties from him be has now colluded with the first petitioner herein and is likely to attorney to him. In this case, no police report was called for before taking the case on file. On the uncor...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. G.L. Udyawar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC628(Kar)
ORDER1. This criminal revision case relates to a reference by the District Magistrate of Raichur and purports to be under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is in respect of an order dated 18th October, 1962, made by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Deodurg, in Criminal Case No. 45/3 of 1962 refusing to take proceedings for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 192 which had been assessed as the sales tax due from the respondent for the year 1959-60. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Raichur, had applied to the Magistrate, under section 13(3)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the recovery of this amount as if it had been a fine imposed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate refused to take proceedings on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer had assessed a wrong person and that respondent Venkoba Naik was not the person from whom the said tax was due. 2.The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer preferred a revision petition to the District Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Thotada Sanna Thippiah Vs. K.S. Palaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant54; AIR1964Mys54; (1963)2MysLJ147
1. The only question for consideration is whether the order passed in Ex. 405/54 in the Court of the Munsif at Chitaldurg is a 'decree' as denned in Section 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently executable. 2. In Ex. No. 405/54, the appellant's properties were sold. He applied to the Court under Rule 90 of Order 21 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the sale. The sale was set aside but the judgment-debtor was directed to pay solatium to the auction-purchaser at the rate of 5% on the amount of the purchase price. The judgment-debtor unsuccessfully went up in appeal against that order. That order is being executed now. The question is whether that order is a 'decree' and as such executable. 3. 'Decree' is defined under Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code thus:- 'The formal expression of an adjudicationwhich, so far as regards the Court expressing it,conclusively determines the rights of the partieswith regard to all or any of the matters in contraverse in the suit and ...
Tag this Judgment!Erappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mys53; 1964CriLJ414
ORDER1. In this petition, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners, that on the facts found by the Court below (in Criminal Case No. 573/3 of 1960, on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Bidar), the conviction of the petitioners under Section 13 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act, is unsustainable.2. The facts found by the Court below, are as follows: On credible information that gambling was going on in A-12's hotel, P. W. 2, the P. S. I., raided that hotel, at about mid-night, on 8-10-1960. At the time of the raid, all the petitioners were found playing cards for money. They were playing a game known as parale, which is a game of chance. They were arrested at the spot. During the search, P. W. 2 seized the playing cards found there as well as the stake money which amounted to one rupee and tight naya paise. The correctness of these facts is not challenged in this Court. The only point urged is that on the proved facts, the petitioners could not have been convicted under Section 13 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sannagoundara Siddappa Vs. Mahadevappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant214; AIR1964Mys214; (1963)2MysLJ471
1. This second appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondents for a declaration of their prescriptive right of easement to lead the water from the bathroom of their house into the open yard of the defendant situated to the north of the plaintiffs' house and for an injunction directing the defendant to remove, the obstruction made by him to the flow of the water.2. The trial Court decreed the suit and this was confirmed by the appellate Court below. The decision depended upon whether the plaintiffs had established exercise of the easementary rights continuously for the requisite period. This was essentially a question of fact and the concurrent finding of the Courts below cannot be interfered with in second appeal.3. But the learned advocate for the defendant, who is the appellant before this court, urges that the decision of the trial Court was vitiated by the fact that it was based mainly on the learned Munsiff's own observations during the local inspection and not on the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevappa Vs. H.P. Madaverappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ601
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. The respondent as complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner in C. C. No. 1564 of 1962 on the file of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Nanjangud, for an offence punishable Under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In his complaint he has cited Sri Warayanarao and Sri Venkatarao as his witnesses. The prosecution case is that in the written statement filed by the petitioner in O. S. No. 171 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff, Nanjangud, the petitioner had made defamatory statements. In O. S. No. 171/.62 Sri Venkatarao was the counsel for the petitioner. It is he who has filed the written statement into Court. Evidently he has also signed the written statement. After that written statement was filed, the respondent caused a notice to be served on the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had defamed him in view of the allegations made in the written statement and therefore be (respondent) proposed to proceed against him.To that notice the pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »