Karnataka Court November 1964 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T.B. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Gulabchand Kundanmal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant276; AIR1965Mys276; ILR1965KAR8; (1965)1MysLJ137
Kalagate, J. (1) This appeal by the plaintiff raises two questions, the first is as to whether the statements contained in the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of his application made in the suit between them to get an order of attachment before judgment are defamatory in character; and the second is, even if they are defamatory in character, whether they, having been made in the course of and with reference to judicial proceeding, are absolutely privileged and, therefore, the plaintiff gets no cause of action to institute the suit for damages in respect of them.(2) They arise in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is a tenant of the defendant. The latter instituted O.S. No. 218 of 1956 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bhadravati, against the present plaintiff to recover Rs. 588/- and odd as arrears of rent due to him. It appear that before this suit of 1956, there was also an earlier suit filed by the defendant against him to recover rents due from him, and the execution...
Century Club and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1964
Reported in: (1965)1MysLJ65
Hegde, J. 1. A common prayer is made in these petitions, namely, that this Court should hold that Explanation to section 2(1)(k) and Explanation I to section 2(1)(t) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Mysore Act No. 9 of 1964) (the amended Act to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are ultra vires of the powers of the State Legislature and for that reason they must be struck down. In two of these petitions, viz., in W.Ps. Nos. 690 and 1067 of 1964, it is also pleaded that those provisions are void and inoperative as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In one of the petitions (in W.P. No. 1630 of 1964) it is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to the State requiring it not to enforce the provisions of the 'Act' against the petitioner therein, in respect of the supplies made by the petitioner to its members. 2. The main contention in these petitions is that the Century Club...
M. Muniswamiah and Sons Vs. E.K. Govinda Raj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant156; AIR1965Mys156
ORDER(1) This revision application is by the defendant under S. 17 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (which hereafter shall be referred to as the Act), against the order, dated the 5th of July 1963, passed by the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in H.R.C. Appeal No. 102 of 1962. By that order, he reversed the order passed by the Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, in H.R.C. No. 290 of 1960.(2) The respondent landlord is the owner of premises No. 3 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore. He is in possession of two thirds portion thereof, and the remaining one third portion is in the possession of the tenant. He, (landlord) therefore, made an application in the Court of the Munsiff Civil Station, Bangalore, under S. 8(2)(ix) and S. 8(3)(c) of the Act to seek possession of the premises. He therein stated that since the house is an old one, it required reconstruction and remodeling which could not be undertaken without the same being vacated by the tenant. He fur...
Mathew Philips Vs. P.O. Koshy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant74; AIR1966Mys74
ORDER(1) This is a civil revision petition preferred by defendant 2 in a suit brought by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraint the defendants from making any construction on the northern portion shown as 'X' and 'Y' in the plan annexed to the plaint, without leaving 4 feet clear space between the edge of the plaintiff's premises and the northern extremity of the buildings under construction.(2)The plaintiff and the defendants are owners of adjacent sites in the City of Bangalore. Pursuant to a building licence issued by the Corporation of Bangalore on 28-2-1962, defendant 2, who had purchased the site from defendant 1, started construction of the building marked 'X' and 'Y' in the plaint plan. The plaintiff made representation to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, alleging that the defendants have violated the terms and conditions of the licence granted by the Corporation of that they have not left the clear space of 4 feet between the edge of the plaintiff's premis...
Javarayi Gowda and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant93; AIR1965Mys93; (1964)2MysLJ423
(1) The common question arising in these six cases is, whether the appeal preferred from the award of the Civil Judge, or the Sub-ordinate Judge, in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, either for apportionment or for enhancement of compensation, in which the appointment or for enhancement of compensation, in which the amount or the value of the subject-matter of the proceeding did not exceed Rs. 10,000/-, lay to this Court or to the Court of the District Judge.(2) Before the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which will be referred to as the principal Act, by the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 (Mysore Act No. 17 of 1961) which will be referred to as the amending Act, which came into force on August 14, 1961, Section 54 of the principal Act authorised an appeal in all cases from an award made by a Court in proceedings under that Act, to this Court. But the amending Act altered the structure of Section 54 of the principal Act and that section...
N. Abdul Subhan Saheb and Sons Vs. Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1964
Reported in: (1964)2MysLJ274; [1965]16STC17(Kar)
Hegde, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the vires of regulation 8(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957, is challenged. The question for our decision is, whether the said regulation, viz. Regulation 8(2), is ultra vires of section 22(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. 2. The material facts of this case are as follows : The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Division, Belgaum, in No. GDG/MST 145/61-62, dated 5th February, 1963, went up in appeal before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Sales Tax Appeal No. 42 of 1963-64. That appeal was posted for hearing on the 4th day of September, 1963. That day, the appellant as well as his counsel were absent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of petitioner's appearance. The petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed by its order dated 10th Marc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›