Karnataka Court June 1963 Judgments
Shankarappa Vs. Basamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant247; AIR1964Mys247; (1964)1MysLJ183
ORDER1. The question arising in this revision petition is whether a suit brought by a person claiming to be the wife of the defendant for an injunction restraining the defendant from contracting a second marriage is cognisable by a civil court. 2. The material facts are these: In the court of the Munsiff of Gulbarga, the plaintiff claiming to be the wife of the defendant instituted a suit on May 6, 1961 and the prayer portion of the plaint reads as follows: 'Hence it is prayed that the plaintiff's suit be decreed against the defendant with cost as follows: 1. That the defendant be perpetually restrained from marrying one Sitamma D/o Gundappa R/o of Pada Taluk Gulbarga or any other girl or woman; 2. Any other relief which the court deems fit be awarded.' In para 1 of her plaint it was stated that the plaintiff was married to the defendant 12 years before the date of the institution of the suit and that she was the second wife of the defendant. In para 3 of the plaint she complained of...
Tag this Judgment!Shivangowda and anr. Vs. Veerappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mys129; 1964CriLJ41; (1963)2MysLJ41
ORDER1. The only point for determination is, whether on the facts of this case, the provision of law that is applicable is Section 252 or Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The material facts of this case are as follows: A private complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Gadag. On receiving the private complaint, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200, Cri. P. C. Thereafter, he sent the papers to the police for an enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After enquiry, the police submitted a charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate took on file the charge sheet and proceeded to frame a charge under Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure without examining the prosecution witnesses, but after perusing the police report. The question for determination is, whether the case in question is one that was instituted on a police report and thus coming within the ambit of Section 251-A of...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswami (T.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1963
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ694Kant
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. This case presents the question whether a Government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe. 2. The material facts are these : On 27 March, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthi Rao, a hotel-keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit and Anti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthi Rao was asked to deliver them to be petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of 28 March, 1959, Krishnamurthi Rao, according to his story,...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Mahadevappa Goundappa Godi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mys52; 1964CriLJ413; (1963)2MysLJ39
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 438 Cr. P. C, made by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwar, recommending that this Court may be pleased to quash the order made by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gadag Division, Gadag, in Mis. Case No. 8 of 1958 on his file as the said order contravenes the provisions of Section 137 Cr. P. C. 2. Misc. Case No. 8/58 is a proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The preliminary order passed in that case reads thus: 'To Shri. Mahadevappa Goudappa Gudi of Korrgal Ori Gadag. Whereas it has been reported to me that you have put up a new building in toe open space tothe north of C. T. S. No. 25/2 of Gadag belonging to one Shri Basappa Mallappa Koppaud' of Gadag with the result that the walls of the building in C. T. S. No. 2155/2 are likely to collapse at any time on account of the heavy load, and likely to cause injury to the life of the neighbouring citizens. Now therefore, I Shri S.S. Moulv...
Tag this Judgment!T. Muniswamy Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant250; AIR1964Mys250; (1963)2MysLJ1
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This case presents the question whether a government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe.2. The material facts are these: On March 27, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthy Rao, a hotel keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit andAnti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthy Rao was asked to deliver them to the petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of March 28, 1959, Krishnamurthy Rao, according to his story, wal...
Tag this Judgment!Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211
1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.But in the appeal preferred by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›