Karnataka Court February 1964 Judgments
Duggamma and anr. Vs. Ganeshayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant97; AIR1965Mys97; ILR1964KAR609; (1964)1MysLJ342
(1) This appeal raises an important question under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards the effect of a foreign judgment on a subsequent suit based on the same original cause of action between the same parties in respect of some other properties.(2)There is no dispute about the facts relevant to the appeal between the parties. The land in dispute were of the ownership of one Ishwar, son of Ganapiah, who died on 19-1-1945 without leaving any direct heirs behind him. The lands are situated at Manvalli in Siddapur Taluka of North Canara District. Respondent No. 1 institutes O.S. 44/56 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sirsi on 7-6-1956, for a declaration that he was the nearest heir to the deceased Ishwar and for possession and other consequential relief's against the appellants and other respondents. The plaintiff claimed to be the father's sister's son of deceased Ishwar while the appellant claimed to be the mother's mother of Ishwar. Ishwar owned some im...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Adiveppa Vs. Venkatesh Raghavendra Hubballi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant65; AIR1965Mys65; ILR1964KAR600
Somnath Iyer, J. (1)This revision petition is before us consequent on a reference made to this Bench under S. 8 of the Mysore High Court Act.(2) The petitioner is the tenant who was sued by the landlord who is the respondent for possession and rent, which, according to the landlord had fallen due for a period of three years. There were many contentions urged by the tenant. There was a decree for eviction made by the Civil Judge which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. But the decree for rent was for and Anr. smaller sum of money than that claimed by the landlord. Whereas the landlord claimed a sum of Rs. 207-50 nP. the decree was for Rs. 98-42 nP.(3)The suit was instituted on April 12, 1959 and was preceded by the issue of a notice Exhibit 37 on February 9,1959.The tenant was informed by that notice that he was a defaulter for a period of three years and that the rent of Rs. 300/- was due from him and that his tenancy was terminated and that he should deliver possession by the...
Tag this Judgment!Hutti Gold Mines Company Vs. Ratnam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1964
Reported in: ILR1964KAR592; (1965)IILLJ20Kant; (1964)2MysLJ85
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. A company called the Hutti Gold Mines Company, Ltd., is the appellant before us, and this appeal is presented under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in which the complaint made is that assessment of the compensation payable to one of its employees, who is the respondent before us, is excessive. 2. The employee was an underground workman in the company. On January 28, 1957 he met with an accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of his employment. The injury which he sustained during that accident resulted in 'fracture dislocation of the body of the lumbar vertebra No. 1.' 3. On 26 October, 1957, it is stated, there was an agreement between the employee and the company that the employee should receive from the company a sum of Rs. 420 in full and final settlement of all his claims against the company. That agreement was forwarded by the company to the Commissioner of Labour who forwarded it to the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Raichur,...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. H.C. Ramaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1964
Reported in: (1968)1MysLJ364; [1964]15STC410(Kar)
Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. A common question of law is raised in all these for appeals, in which the respondent is the same person. These four appeals are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Four separate charge-sheets each for an offence punishable under section 20(1)(a) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, on the allegation that the respondent had wilfully submitted an untrue return of his turnover of the business and had thereby made himself liable for prosecution, were filed against the respondent, in the Court of the City Magistrate Bangalore. They were numbered as Criminal Cases Nos. 10328 of 1961, 110 of 1962, III of 1962 and 112 of 1962. 3. The respondent who was served with a summons in all these cases, appeared before the learned Magistrate and made an application to the effect that the prosecution against him for the offence, purported to have been committed by him under section 20(1)(a) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948 was untenable, in view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras-bangalore Transport Company Vs. Madras-bangalore Transport Comp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1964
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ614Kant
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. We are not satisfied that in the face of the statutory provisions, viz., S. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there survives some common law right of the past under which a party to an industrial dispute has an unqualified right to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings under the said Act. 2. Nor do we find any reasonable ground for the argument that the right to be represented by a legal practitioner is part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech, the right to hold property and the right to carry on any trade or business. Therefore, the limited restriction imposed by S. 36 in a law sanctioned by Parliament in the exercise of its legislative competence as conferred by the Constitution, cannot be viewed as an abridgment of any fundamental right. 3. We have not been shown that S. 30 of the Advocates Act which gives every advocate a statutory right to practice before any tribunal or court, has been brought into force. Further, the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. H.B. Van Ingen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR681(KAR); [1964]53ITR681(Karn)
Hedge, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question of law referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,872 is a capital or a revenue receipt ?' 2. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Commissioner came to the conclusion that the same is 'income' whereas the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is 'capital'. 3. The materials facts of the case are as follows : 4. The assessee purchased a coffee estate on October 9, 1934, for a sum of Rs. 22,000. Even on the date of the purchase, coffee plants had been planted in a portion of that estate and the rest jungle. Year after year, he cleared portions of the jungle for the purpose of planting coffee. The cleared jungle was sole by him. The question for decision is whether the price realised by him by the sale of the trees is 'income'. 5. The facts found by the Tribunal which finding is binding on us are as follows : 'The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Jayarama Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR680(KAR); [1964]53ITR680(Karn)
Hedge, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question of law referred is : 'Whether, in computing the written down value for the purposes of the second; proviso to section 10(2)(vii) the initial depreciation allowed under section 10(2)(vi) is to be included ?' 2. The question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue, in view of the decision of this court in Esthuri Aswathiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In other words, our answer to the question referred is that the initial depreciation allowed under section 10(2)(vi)(a) should be taken into account in ascertaining the written down value for the purposes of computing the profit under section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 3. No costs. 4. Questions answered in the affirmative. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bheema Rao Vs. Venkat Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mys285; 1964CriLJ692; ILR1964KAR518; (1964)1MysLJ157
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The appellant filed a criminal complaint against therespondent who is a practising lawyer at Bhalki in BidarDistrict for air offence punishable under Section 504 ofthe Indian Penal Code. The case made out in the complaint is that when the complainant was being cross-examined in Civil Case No. 16/1 of 1959 in the Courtof the Munsif, the accused used filthy words with the intention of insulting him and that though he felt verymuch annoyed he was helpless as he had to observe complete silence in order to maintain the dignity of theCourt. After recording evidence as in a warrant case the Magistrate framed a charge under Section 504 of theIndian Penal Code and completed the trial according tolaw. During the course of his examination, under Section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused was questioned about the insulting language used by him against the complainantbut he replied that he could not say what he had thensaid as he had been provoked by the complainant so asto affect his presti...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Gowda Vs. the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant41; AIR1965Mys41; ILR1964KAR321; (1964)1MysLJ317
ORDER(1) This Writ Petition pertains to certain proceedings relating to the grant of stage carriage permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act).The present 4th respondent applied for a stage carriage permit for plying his bus from Bangalore to via Kunigal via Tavarekere, Magadi and Kempanahalli, and back. As part of the route lay within Bangalore District and the remaining part in Tumkur District, it was an inter-regional route. It was on 14-6-1958 that the 4th respondent filed his application; the substance of that application was published in the Mysore Gazetted Dated 25-12-1958. On 13-2-1959, the application of the 4th respondent was considered by the Bangalore Regional Transport Authority and it was resolved that a permit be granted to the 4th respondent. The present petitioner was one of the objectors before the R.T.A. ; he was an operator on the route Bangalore to Kallur, a portion of which was common with the route for whi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Official Liquidator H.C. Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant261; AIR1965Mys261
ORDER(1) In this application under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the applicant, State Government of Mysore, appeal against an order of the Official Liquidator dated 26th November 1963, totally rejecting its claim for payment to it, out of the assets of the Company in winding up of a sum of Rs. 62,817-01 as a preferential claim.(2) The claim is described as guarantee commission payable to the State Government on account of the Government having guaranteed due repayment by the Company of a loan of Rs. 10,00,000 advanced to it by the Bank of Mysore on the mortgage of its immoveable property and hypothecation of its machinery and other moveables.(3)Among the facts stated in the order of the Official Liquidator under appeal, there is no dispute regarding the following facts:--Late in 1948, the Company appears to have approached the State Government for a loan in aid of the industry it was contemplating to set up. The Government, however, did not themselves grant the loan bu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›