Karnataka Court December 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.
C. Abdul Aziz Vs. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant286; AIR1965Mys286; (1965)1MysLJ206
Santosh, J. (1) The question that arises for decision in these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether a stage carriage operator who has filed his representations under Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, after the notified time is entitled to file an appeal under Section 64(1)(f) of the said Act.(2) The petitioner in both these petitions is one Abdul Azeez. He has prayed for a writ in the nature of prohibition or any order or direction, prohibiting the first respondent (Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal) from proceeding with the hearing of the Appeals Nos. 415 and 420 of 1964 pending on its file. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or direction quashing the order of the first respondent dated 10-7-1964 passed in the said appeals referred to before.(3) The petitioner applied on 8-12-1960 for a stage carriage permit on the route Bangalore-Chittoor. The Regional Transport Authority notified ...
Subhashini K. and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant40; AIR1966Mys40; (1965)2MysLJ571
Hegde, J. (1) In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners who were applicants for admissions to one or the other of the Medical Colleges under the Management of the Government pray that this Court may be pleased to (i) quash by the issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction as the case may be the Order of the Government dated 29-6-1964; and (ii) to direct by the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, the respondent to admit the petitioners to any one of the Medical College in which he or she had shown preference in his or her application for prosecuting their studies in the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine leading to M.B.B.S. degree.(2) The Petitioners herein have passed in the Pre-University examination of the Mysore University with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects. They applied for admission in the current year to the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine leading to M.B.B.S. degree.(3...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore Vs. Mysore Commercial Union Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR754(KAR); [1964]53ITR754(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of plywood products. Due to losses and insufficiency of profits in the past, depreciation was not provided for in full in the accounts in respect of the assets of the company. In the balance-sheet of the assesses-company as on March 31, 1959, the fixed assets had been shown as under : Fixed assets (at book value) Rs.Gross block 48,40,077Less : depreciation 25,66,473----------22,73,604----------2. The total of the assets, inclusive of the above sum, was Rs. 51,60,817. The following note has been appended to this balance-sheet by the directors : 'It has not been possible to provide the full depreciation till March 30, 1959, on the fixed assets.' 3. The statutory auditors of the assessee had also referred to this aspect in the following words : 'Provision in full had not been made for depreciation on fixed assets to March 31, 1959.' 4. The balance-sheet as on March 31, 1958, also contained a similar ...
The State Vs. B. Chikkavenkatappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mys253; 1965CriLJ379; (1965)1MysLJ26
ORDER(1) This is a reference made under S. 438, Cr. P.C. by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge,--Bangalore Division, Bangalore, who, on examining the records of the Special First Class Magistrate, K.G.F., in C. C. No. 3214 of 1962, felt that the Order passed by the said Magistrate on 11-3-1963, purporting to discharge Accused 1 in that case, was erroneous.(2) The facts necessary for deciding this reference are only few and are as follows. Before the Magistrate, Respondent 1 in this Revision Case was the Complainant and Respondent 2 was Accused 1. It was alleged in the complaint that while the complainant was supervising construction of his house Accused 1 and another person, Accused 2, entered his house and that Accused 1 (Respondent 1) took his chappals into his hand, raised his hand and came upon the complainant in a furious mood saying that he would hit the complainant and dishonour him (the complainant) with object of intimidating him in order to force him to close the window, whi...
Madappa and ors. Vs. Mudumallamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant49; AIR1966Mys49
(1) These appeals are heard together since they involve common questions of law. In order to understand the said questions, it is necessary to state the relevant facts.(2) I shall first state the necessary facts relating to Second Appeal No. 243/1960. The appellants are defendants. Respondent-plaintiff, since deceased and now represented by her legal representative, instituted O.S. No. 174/52 in the Court of the Principal District Munsiff, Kollegal, for a declaration of her ownership to and possession of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. She also claimed past and future mesne profits and prayed that a charge be created over items 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties for payment of the same. The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was stated to be Rs. 1,221-4-0.(3) Defendants denied her claim. The learned District Munsiff decreed the suit on 18-8-1954.(4) The defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge at Coimbatore. When the appeal was pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›