Karnataka Court June 1965 Judgments
Mary Lazrado Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys244; 1966CriLJ1036; (1965)2MysLJ107
ORDER(1) The main point for decision in this revision petition is whether non-compliance of the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Rules)--affects the evidentiary value of the report made by the public Analyst so as to vitiate the conviction under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(hereinafter called the Act).(2) There is no dispute about the relevant facts of this case. The Food Inspector of Mangalore Municipality purchased from the petitioner 700 m. litres of Cow's milk on payment of Rs. 0-70 on 19-4-1963 at 6.40 A.M. in Mangalore Town after due notice to her, for the purpose of analysis of the milk. He divided the sample into three portions and put them into three empty bottles adding 16 drops of Formalin as preservative and corked., sealed and labelled each of the bottles under a 'Yadast' (Executed. P-2) He handed over one of such bottles to the petitioner and sent another...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Ahmed Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1965
Reported in: ILR1966KAR124; (1966)ILLJ816Kant; (1965)2MysLJ215
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order of appointment of respondent 2 as the 'specially empowered authority,' as per the order of the Governor in No. LAW 284 CET. 64, dated 11 January, 1965, and further quash all proceedings of respondent 2 held in pursuance of the above order by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Court deems fit. 2. The material facts of this case are these : In the year 1943 the petitioner was recruited as a District Munsif by the Madras Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he was serving in the Judicial Department of the then Madras State. He was promoted as a Subordinate Judge in the year 1954. At the time of the reorganization of the State on 1 November, 1956 he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. In this State the post of a Subordinate Judge has been equated to that of a civil Judge. From the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Dattaprasad Dindayal Kalwar Vs. the Cantonment Board Camp
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1235
ORDERT.K. Tukol, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 268 of the Cantonments Act (II of 1924) for failure to comply with the notice issued by the Cantonment Board, Belgaum, calling upon him to remove the trees according to the Resolution passed on 8-8-1962 under Section 195 of the said Act. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not guilty of any offence and that the trees referred to by the Board had not been overhanging the property of neighbour.2. The short question that arises for my consideration in this revision petition is, whether the Resolution passed by the Cantonment Board under Section 195 of the Cantonment Act (which is hereinafter called the Act) is legal and whether the petitioner's failure to comply with it be comes punishable under 3. 268 of the Act.3. In order to appreciate the legal position arising for determination in this revision petition, it is necessary to read Section 193 at this stage, It reads:195, (1) where, in the opinion of Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Vs. John D'sa Marian D'sa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant3; AIR1967Mys3
1. This second appeal arises from the decision of the Subordinate Judge Mangalore, S. K.. in Appeal Suit No. 141 of 1961 on his file.2. Sri B. P. Holla, the learned counsel for the appellant, formulated the following three questions of law for decision. They are: (1) whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation: (2) whether the plaintiff who is a third party to the contract can sue for the amount in question; and (3) what is the quantum of interest to which the plaintiff is entitled to.3. The material facts of this case are as follows: Plaintiff and defendant are brothers: they are the sons of one Marian D'Sa; defendant is the son of the said Marian D'Sa through his first wife, whereas plaintiff is his son through his second wife The said Marian D'Sa sold some immovable property of his to the defendant on 29th March 1933 for a sum of Rs. 200 (Exhibit A-1) Out of the said consideration of Rs 200 the defendant paid the vendor Rs. 100 in cash. For the balance amount, it was provide...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Basappa Vs. Siddamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant198; AIR1966Mys198; (1965)2MysLJ167
(1) The only question of law that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent's Execution application in Execution No. 38 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff at Arsikere cannot be proceeded with without the production of a succession certificate.(2) Ningappa the husband of the respondent obtained a money decree against the appellant in O.S. No. 507 of 1957 on the file of the Munsiff at Hassan. But before he could recover the money decreed he died leaving behind him his widow the respondent and two sons. It is said that the two sons of Nongappa had released their right in the suit decree in favour of their mother, the respondent. The respondent has now levied execution of the decree, the execution case being Ex. No. 38 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff at Arsikere as mentioned earlier. The execution Applicant is resisted by the judgment debtor on the ground that the same cannot be proceeded without the production of a succession certificate as required by Section 214 of...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Vittal Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant138; AIR1966Mys138; ILR1965KAR1037; (1965)2MysLJ119
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) In this writ Petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Art. 17 in the schedule to the Mysore Stamp Act 1957, as amended by the Mysore Stamp (Amendment) Act, 192, which come into force on the first day of October 196 (the Amendment Act to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), primarily on the ground that the Mysore Legislature had no legislative competence to enact the said Article and consequently, the same is void, alternatively on the ground that the same being repugnant to the provisions in the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961), it is liable to be struck down. He further prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the second respondent, namely, the Mysore State Bar Council, requiring the said Bar Council to enrol him as an Advocate without requiring him to produce non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 250 as provided in the aforementioned Art. 17.(2) The petitioner has passed B.Sc., and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sannabasappa Ningappa Bhagoji Vs. Sannagireppa Sankreppa Kumbar and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant117; AIR1967Mys117
Hegde, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Herein it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Belganm Bench in R. A. B. 142 of 1962 on its file as well as the order made by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum in RB/ IND/A. P-313 dated 14-3-1962 on his file and restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum in No. RB/IND/A. P. 22/59 dated 30-9-1961. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record.2. The following are the material facts: Survey No. 106 of Chilmur village in Ramdurg Taluk measuring 1 acre and 27 guntas was a Government unoccupied land. The petitioner who owns land adjoining this land applied to the Mamlaldar on 16-12-1955 to sell that land to him for an occupancy price to be fixed. His application was considered by the Mamlatdar and thereafter by the Assistant Co...
Tag this Judgment!Kantappa Vs. Sharanamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant81; AIR1967Mys81; (1966)2MysLJ767
1. The petitioner was ordered by the Munsiff Magistrate of Bhalki to pay maintenance of Rs. 20 per month to his wife the respondent. The petitioner failed to comply with this order. The wife made an application under Section 488(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the petitioner had failed to pay maintenance as ordered by the court for one year from 2nd August 1962 to 2nd August 1963. The petitioner's counsel filed an application requesting the court to grant two months' time to make the payment. This application was opposed by the wife on the ground that in spite of the warrant issued by the Court, he had evaded payment. The Magistrate refused to grant time to the petitioner and passed the following order : 'Respondent's application for time is rejected. He should be kept in the prison till he pays the entire arrears standing due. He is committed to prison.' Against this order a revision petition was filed in the court of Session at Bidar in Criminal Revision Petition No...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Osman Ali Vs. Patel (C.M.) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1965
Reported in: [1965(11)FLR368]; ILR1965KAR1023; (1966)ILLJ833Kant; (1965)2MysLJ273
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. These are two appeals preferred by the Provident Funds Inspector, Raichur Division, from order of acquittal made in persecutions commenced under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The respondent in each of these appeals is the proprietor of a mining concern known as Pusheli Manganese Mines, Supapeth, in the district of North Kanara. 2. The appellant presented two complaints against the respondent who was accused 1 charging him with transgressions of the provisions of S. 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, which will be referred to as the Act, and Para. 76 of the Employees' Provident Funds scheme which will be referred to as the scheme. The accusation in one case was that the respondents who will be referred to as accused 1 neglected to make his contribution towards the provident fund constituted under the scheme for the moths of January, February and March 1961. The allegation in the other case was that he failed to furnish returns as required by ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raja Manickavelu Vs. Official Liquidator High Court of Mysore and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1965
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas562(Kar); (1965)2MysLJ169
ORDERGovinda Bhatt, J.1. This is an application for stay of the operation of the order dated June 4, 1965, made in Company Application No. 85 of 1964 by the hon'ble the Company Judge, pending disposal of the above appeal. When the stay application came up for orders on July 2, 1965, Mr. Chandy, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, raised a preliminary objection to my hearing the application, contending th at only a Bench of two judges has jurisdiction to hear an application for stay in an original side appeal. The matter was, therefore, set for hearing on the question of jurisdiction. 2. The decisions on the question of jurisdiction rests on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Mysore High Court Act. 1961 (Mysore Act NO. 5 of 1962), hereinafter called 'the Act'. The Act makes a provision for the exercise3 of the powers of the High Court of Mysore in relation to the administration of justice. The provisions of the Act relevant for the decision are sections 4, 9 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »