Karnataka Court December 1964 Judgments
D. Munirangappa Vs. Amidayala Venkatappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant316; AIR1965Mys316; (1965)1MysLJ201
ORDER(1) The Petitioner as plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 814 of 1961 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff at Tumkur against the defendants, who are respondents in this Petition, to recover a sum of Rs. 2,300/- due by them. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim and one of the contentions raised by them was that the Court at Tumkur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.(2) Necessary issues were framed; and one of the issues which related to the jurisdiction of the Court at Tumkur to entertain the suit was tried as a preliminary issue.(3) The plaintiff who is a Contractor was supplying goods to the Defendants who are the proprietors of a Dramatic Company. The amount claimed in the suit relates to the period between 28-1-1959 and 5-2-1959. The account kept by the Plaintiff was a running account and he was spending the amount whenever necessary for the Defendants. The account patti shows that a part of the claim arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tumkur. Both the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Sitarama Udupa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR38(KAR); [1965]58ITR38(Karn)
1. The main question for decision in this petition is whether the provisions of section 80 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are applicable to the case or the provision of section 80 of the Estate Duty Act which has been replaced by the Finance Act, 1964. 2. The learned advocate for the respondent argued that though the Finance Act, 1964, has come into force on the 1st of April, 1964, and the order in revision had been made prior to that date, nevertheless, the subsequent event should be taken into consideration when interfering with the order of the lower court, even if the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of the repealed section 80 of the Estate Duty Act. Whereas it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that retrospective effect cannot be given to the Finance Act. That being so, the case is governed by the old section 80 of the Estate Duty Act, and, if it is governed by the provisions of the said section, the order of the lower court is unsustainable...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Gangamma (A-4) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant235; AIR1965Mys235; 1965CriLJ376; (1965)1MysLJ92
ORDER(1) This is a reference under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, who on examining the records in C.C. No. 2099 of 1963 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Sagar, felt that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 25-2-1964 was erroneous.(2) Respondent 2 in this revision case filed a complaint before the Special First Class Magistrate, Sagar, against respondents 1 and 3 to 6 in this revision case who were arraigned as accused 1 to 4. The complainant was the elder brother of Jayalakshmiyamma who was admittedly the wife of Accused 1, Venkataramana. It was alleged in the complaint that even when Jayalakshmiyamma was alive, accused 1 married another woman by name Vedavathiamma on 25-4-1963. The other accused are alleged to be the abettors of this bigamous marriage. Jayalakshmiyamma, wife of accused 1 is alleged to have married Vedavathiamma. After the death of Jayalakshmiyamma, her brother filed the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Pakira Bhandary and ors. Vs. Devu Bhandary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant115; AIR1966Mys115
1. This Second Appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The short question that is raised by the appellants is, whether the respondent is entitled to execute the decree. It arises in this way: The decree sought to be executed was obtained by one Mundi Hengsu, since deceased, in O.S. No. 367 of 1947 as Yejamanthi of Aliyasanthana family of which the appellants and respondent were members; that decree was for possession and mesne profits to be realised from the present judgment-debtors; thereafter, there was a partition suit among the members of the Aliyasanthana family and a final decree for partition came to be passed on 14-9-1954; the present respondent claiming as heir to one Manku Bhandary, since deceased sought to execute the decree obtained in O.S. No. 367 of 1947 and realise the decretal amount from the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors objected to the maintainability of this execution petition. It was contended by them that the decree sought to be executed was not an exe...
Tag this Judgment!Zaibunnissa Vs. Southern Railway
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ177Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 4 June 1962, Hussainsab Doddamani, who was a brakes man in the Southern Railway, was involved in a railway accident between Kundgol and Saunshi stations and died. The Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500 in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; Dharwar, for payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased Hussainsab. The appellant before us, who is the widow of Hussainsab, submitted her claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation both on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her children in January 1963. 2. But there was also a claim made by the widow for payment of compensation under S. 82A of the Indian Railways Act in the Court of the ex-officio Claims Commissioner and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, who made an order on February 16, 1963, that the railway administration should pay the compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,000 to the widow of the deceased Hussainsab. It is s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Siddegowda Vs. Parvathamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant299; AIR1965Mys299; (1965)1MysLJ124
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This is an appeal by a husband whose application for a decree of judicial separation was refused by the Civil Judge. That decree was sought on two grounds : The first was that the wife was in adultery. The second was that she had deserted the husband for a continues period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.(2) The disgraceful allegation that the wife was in adultery was abandoned by the husband in the Court below. He gave no evidence about it. Mr. Raghavendra Rao has therefore very rightly restricted his submission to the case constructed on the plea that there was desertion on the part of the wife.(3) It is common ground that for a period of four years preceding the presentation of the application by the husband the two spouses were living separately. It is also not disputed that what actuated the wife to live separately from her husband was that her husband had another wife living and that wife was the first wife. It...
Tag this Judgment!Zaibunnisa Vs. the Divisional Superintendent Southern Railway, Hubli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant306; AIR1965Mys306; (1965)1MysLJ215
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) On June 4, 1962 Hussainsab Doddamani who was a brakes man in the Southern Railway was involved in a railway accident between Kundgol and Saunshi stations and died. The Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dharwar, for payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased Hussainsab. The appellant before us who is the widow of Hussainsab submitted her claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation both on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her children in January 1963.(2) But there was also a claim made by the widow for payment of compensation under section 82A of the Indian Railways Act in the court of the Ex-officio Claims-Commissioner and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, who made an order on February 16, 1963 that the railway administration should pay the compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the widow of the deceased Hussainsab. It ...
Tag this Judgment!iron and Steel Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Mysor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC643(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J.1. The only question for consideration in this petition is, whether the petitioner, an Industrial Co-operative Society, is liable to pay any sales tax in respect of the hire-purchase transactions entered into by it with its members. 2. The proved facts of the case are that the petitioner supplies machinery to its members on hire-purchase basis. In its turn, it gets machinery from a Bombay firm known as the National Small Industries Corporation (Bombay) Private Ltd., on hire-purchase basis. During the assessment year 1958-59, the petitioner had entered into 11 hire-purchase agreements. The hire-purchase amounts received during that year under those agreements, amounted to Rs. 1,44,681. This sum was assessed to sales tax under section 5(3)(a) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The validity of that assessment is challenged by the petitioner. 3. Explanation I to section 2(t) of the Act says : 'A transfer of goods on hire-purchase or other instalment system of payment shall, n...
Tag this Judgment!Newspaper Publisher (Private) Ltd., Mangalore Vs. their Workmen (by S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1964
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ315Kant
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. This write petition pertains to the award made by the labour court at Hubli, in Reference (I.D.) (L.C.H.) No. 37 of 1961 on its file and published in the Mysore Gazette of 5 July, 1962. The workmen of Newspaper Publisher (Private), Ltd. represented by the S. K. Press Workers' Union, Maidan Road, Mangalore, was the first party in that reference; the present petitioner was the second party. For the purpose of the present writ petition, we are concerned only with two questions out of those covered by the award. The first is the order of the labour court that one Jayananda Shetty who had been discharged by the petitioner on 26 December, 1960 should be reinstated; the second is the order of the labour court requiring the payment of an additional bonus equivalent to half-month's basic wages, to the first party workmen. These are the two main questions to which Sri T. Krishna Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has confined himself and has contended that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirappa Gangappa Madli and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mys302; 1965CriLJ656; (1965)1MysLJ91
Tukol, J. (1) The seven petitioners have been committed to the Court of Sessions at Dharwar under Section 207A(10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stand their trial for offences punishable under Ss. 148 and 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Gangayya on 6-5-1964. Mr. Government Pleader. P.L. Patil the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order of commitment passed by the Magistrate deserves to be quashed as there is no prima facie case against the accused.(2) The story of the prosecution is that when deceased Gangayya was going along with Shantayya (P.W. 1) at about 1 A.M. he was murdered by all the accused somewhere on the road between Hireharkuni and Kamdolli. Besides Shantayya, Neelakanthagowda and Rudriah were alleged to be eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution also alleged that a blood-stained axe, a blood-stained sickle and a blood-stained knife were recovered during the course of the investi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »