Karnataka Court November 1964 Judgments
M. Subbanna Naik and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant269; AIR1965Mys269; (1965)1MysLJ269
Hegde, J. (1) These petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution raise identical questions of law. Therefore, they can be disposed of in one order.(2) In these petitions, this court is asked to quash the acquisition proceedings commencing with the government Notification No. RDH 4 LCI 60 dated 18-2-1960 issued under S. 4(1) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act (Act VII of 1894), to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and all consequential proceedings taken thereupon including the Notification No. RDH 4 LCI 60 dated 22-11-1960 issued under S. 6 of the Act, in respect of the petitioner's lands bearing Survey Numbers 50/1, 62 and 50/2 of Haralapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Harihar Taluk Chitradurga District.(3) The material facts are not in dispute and they may be stated thus : The joint family of the petitioners in W.P. 2350/63 is the owner of S.No. 50/2 of that village. The Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., (3rd respondent in these petitions) wanted these lands for the extension of its factory. A...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madhu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ223
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. The appellant was the first accused in Sessions Case No. 27/8 of 1962 on the file of the Court of Session, Bidar. There were eight other accused persons tried along with him but they have all been acquitted.2. The incident, in respect of which the said 9 persons came to be prosecuted, took place in the village of Sidhol in Humnabad Taluk on the evening of 19th March 1962 and resulted in the death of one Rama Rao, Police Patil of the village. The charges framed against the accused at the trial are therefore related to the murder of the said Rama Rao3. As against accused 2 and 3, the charge was under Section 120B of the Penal Code alleging that they had conspired with the 1st accused to commit the murder of the said Rama Rao. They were acquitted of that charge.4. As against accused 1 and 4 to 9, two charges were framed -- one under Section 148 of the Penal Code and the other under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code on the general allegation that the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant61; AIR1966Mys61
Hegde, J.(1) These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, raise common questions of law. The grievances of the petitioners in these petitions are identical. They challenge the validity of the Order made by the respondent in No. RD. 105 EGO 60 dated 29th May 1961, compulsorily retiring them from service.(2) The petitioners joined the erstwhile State of Hyderabad as clerks. On the eve of the reorganisation of the States on 1-11-1956, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 807 and 809 of 1962 were serving as Deputy Tahsildars and the petitioner in W.P. No. 808 of 1962 as a Superintendent in the Board of Revenue. At the time of the reorganisation of the States, the petitioners were allotted to the new State of Mysore. Thereafter they were promoted as Tahsildars. The petitioner in W.P. No. 807/62 was promoted as Tahsildar with effect from 21-10-1959, the petitioner in W.P. No. 809/62 from 19-9-1957. On 29-5-1961, the Government made the following Order.'Government of MysoreMysore Govt. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Narasimhe Gowda N.G. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant167; AIR1965Mys167; 1965CriLJ48; (1964)2MysLJ241
T.K. Tukol, J. (1) This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Holenarasipur, on 30-5-1963 in Criminal Case No. 132 of 1963 on his file.(2) The facts relevant to the determination of the points at issue are few and simple. A charge sheet was filed against the respondents for an offence punishable under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code on 5-2-1963. When the accused appeared after service of summons, the Magistrate satisfied himself that the documents referred to S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been furnished to them and framed a charge against the accused for the offences for which they have been charge sheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty and so the case was adjourned for production of prosecution witnesses. After some adjournments caused either by the absence of the accused, want of time for the Court or the absence of the prosecution witnesses, the case was adjourned 25-10-1963. On that date Accused No. 1 was absent a...
Tag this Judgment!Damodhar Rao Vs. Bhima Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant290; AIR1965Mys290; ILR1964KAR1119; (1965)1MysLJ351
(1) The appellant is the purchaser of the suit house from respondent No. 2 under a sale-deed dated 26-4-1954 for a sum of Rs. 600/- (O.S.). Respondent No. 2 is the widow of the cousin brother of respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff that instituted O.S. 64/1 of 1956 in the Court of the Munsiff at Chincholi on 31-8-1956 for a declaration that the alienation was not binding upon him as the alienated property was the joint family property. Respondent No. 2 first conceded for a decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff but subsequently resiled. The trial Court did not permit her to resile from the stand that she had taken in the first instance by filing a written statement consenting to a decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff. The purchaser contended that the family of the plaintiff and of his vendor was not a joint Hindu family, that his vendor's husband Kishan Rao had become divided during his lifetime and that as his vendor had been in possession of all the properties of h...
Tag this Judgment!Chikka Venkatappa Vs. Papanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant297; AIR1965Mys297; ILR1965KAR20; (1965)1MysLJ141
(1) This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed against him by the Civil Judge, Kolar in Regular Appeal No. 110 of 1959 by which the learned Judge directed a preliminary decree for redemption to be passed against him.(2) The respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. 429 of 1958 alleging that the sale-deed executed by him in favour of the defendant for Rs. 500 on 7-5-1955 conveying Survey Nos. 68/1 and 69/1 situated at Lakkur in Malur Taluka was in reality a mortgage. According to him, there was an oral agreement at the time of settlement of the transaction between himself and the defendant to the effect that the latter should reconvey the property on receiving Rs. 500/- with interest at 9% per annum. He prayed for a decree for redemption, or, in the alternative, a decree directing the defendant to reconvey the schedule properties after receiving the amount due to him. The defendant denied the oral agreement and contended that he was the absolute owner of the suit pro...
Tag this Judgment!Swasti Cashew Industries (Private) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1964
Reported in: (1965)ILLJ367Kant; (1964)2MysLJ250
ORDERSadasivayya, J.1. The Swasti Cashew Industries (Private), Ltd., which is the petitioner, has prayed for the quashing of the award made by the industrial tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, in Industrial Dispute No. 34 of 1960. That award has been published in the Mysore Gazette dated 11 January 1962. By that award, the industrial tribunal has directed the payment of a bonus at the rate of 5 per cent of the annual earnings of each workman in the two factories of the petitioner at Mangalore, the workers being represented by the Cashewnut Workers' Union, Mangalore, which is respondent 2(a) and the Dakshina Kannada Gerubija Shramika Sangha which is respondent 2(b). The award made by the tribunal is attacked by the petitioner's counsel on the following grounds : (a) The first ground is that the tribunal erred in apportioning the capital of Rs. 5,00,000 and treating the capital used for the Mangalore factories as Rs. 2,50,000. This contention is put as follows : There is absolutely no plea ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore Vs. H.H. Yeshwant Rao Ghorpade
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR492(KAR); [1965]58ITR492(Karn)
Hedge, J.1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The question referred for our opinion i : 'Whether the sums of Rs. 4,30,684 and Rs. 4,13,353 being value of the shares transferred by the assessee to the Sandur Ruler's Family (Second) Trust could be included in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 under the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Ac ?' 2. The material facts are these : The assessee held 12,750 shares in the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores (P.) Ltd., as on March 31, 1957. He transferred some of those shares to his wife, some to the Sandur Ruler's Family First Trust and 3,030 shares to Sandur Ruler's Family (Second) Trust which came into being on 24th August, 1957. The said trust will be hereinafter referred to as the second trust. The question for our decision is whether the value of the shares transferred to the second trust have to b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Mysore at Bangalore Vs. Yeshwant Rao Ghorp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant27; AIR1966Mys27
Hegde, J. (1) This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. 1957(Act No. 27 of 1957) to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The question referred for our opinion is:'Whether the sums of Rs. 4,30,684 and Rs. 4,13,353 being the value of the shares transferred by the assessee to the Sandur Ruler's Family (Second) Trust could be included in the new wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 under the provisions of S. 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act?'(2)The material facts are these: The assessee held 12,750 shares in the Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores (P) Ltd., as on 31-3-1957. He transferred some of those shares to his wife, some to the Sandur Ruler's Family First Trust and 3030 shares to Sandur Ruler Family (Second) Trust which came into being on 24th August 1957. The said trust will be hereinafter referred to as the Second Trust. The question for our decision is whether the value of the shares transferred to the Second Trust have to be ta...
Tag this Judgment!George Da Costa Vs. Collector of Estate Duty, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR58(KAR); [1965]58ITR58(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The question referred for our opinion i : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property at No. 34, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore, was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on his death under section 10 to the Ac ?' By his application dated the 27th September, 1961, Shri George da Costa (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) requires the Central Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to refer to the hon'ble High Court of Mysore certain questions of law which are said to arise out of the Board's Appellate Order in Estate Duty Appeal No. My/31 (F. No. 28/62/60-ED) dated the 3rd July, 1961. As in the Board's opinion a question of law does arise out of their said appellate order, the following statement of the case is drawn up and referred to the hon'ble High Court as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »