Karnataka Court January 1966 Judgments
RafiuddIn Vs. Zubedabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant155; AIR1968Mys155
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) In the City of Belgaum there lived a person named Ibrahim Soudagar who according to the evidence, belong to a respectable family and exercised the profession of an excise contractor. It appears that he was a person of more than ordinary affluence. He died in the year 1912. Ibrahim left behind him a widow Hafizabi. Through that wife he had a son Jamaluddin, and, Jamaluddin had a son and two daughters named respectively Rafiuddin, Hafizabi and Khatijabi.(2) In the year 1957, a certain Zubedabi made an application for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of her husband Saifuddin. Zubedabi claimed to be the only heir to the estate of Saifuddin. To this application caveats were entered by Rafiuddin and his two sisters who it may be recalled, were the children of Jamaluddin who was the son of Ibrahim through his wife Hafizabi.(3) The caveators contended that Saifuddin was also the son of Ibrahim through his wife Tarabi and that in the estate of ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Venkatasubbiah Setty Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys296; 1966CriLJ1287; (1967)2MysLJ412
ORDER(1) The petitioner who was the accused in the trial Court, has been convicted by the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore of an offence under Section 376(1) red with Section 297(1) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.(2) The charge against the petitioner was that he was found running a soap factors on 15-9-1964 at No. 20 III Block. Jayanagar, Bangalore, without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of the Corporation of the city of Bangalore for the year 1964-65 and there by committed an offence under Section 297 read with Section 376(1) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.(3) Sri Dayanand, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me three points: (1) Section 297 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is ultra vires as it infringes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution (2). As the complaint has be...
Tag this Judgment!U. Ahmed HussaIn and ors. Vs. Inspector (Tea Waste Control) Tea Board ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys293; 1966CriLJ1284; (1966)1MysLJ255
ORDER(1) The Petitioners before this Court are the accused in the Court of the Additional First Class s Magistrate, Mangalore in C.C. No. 2888/64. They were prosecuted for storing tea waste without a licence. The charge against them was under Section 41 read with section 30(3) of the Tea Act of 1953 and Clause 3 of the Tea Waste (Control) Order 1959.(2) The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: On 18th of February 1964, P.W. 1 who is an Inspector of the Tea Board, inspected the godown of the petitioners. He found a stock of 70 Kgs. Of tea waste stored in the premises packed in two chests, and they had no licence as required under the Tea Waste (Control) Order 1959. P.W. 1 therefore took one sample from the said stock in the presence of their Manager. T his sample was divided and packed in three tins, labelled and sealed by P.W.1. one sample tin bearing No. 10/SP/64 was handed over to the petitioners. Another sample seized was sent to the Public Analyst who has been duly appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Reddi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1966
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ493Kant; (1966)2MysLJ97
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The appellant who is the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was employed as a civilian driver in the Defence Service under an agreement executed on 18 October, 1950. Under the agreement he had to work under defendant 2 who was the Commanding Officer, Indian Air Force Station, Jalahalli. On 29 July, 1954, he was discharged with effect from 31 July, 1954. 2. On 16 June, 1955, the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif for a declaration that he was wrongly removed from service. The Munsif gave him that declaration, but in the appeal preferred by the defendants who are respectively the Union of India and the Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, Jalahalli, the Civil Judge reversed the decree of the Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 3. From this decree the plaintiff appeals, and when Govinda Bhat, J., heard it, he referred it to a Bench of two Judges under the provisions of S. 6 of the Mysore High Court Act since in his opinion ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Tythappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mys51; 1967CriLJ557; ILR1966KAR247; (1966)1MysLJ108
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence passed on the respondent in Criminal Case No. 445 of 1965 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Hassan. The respondent was charged with having committed an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also of ;in offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Charges under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act were framed and he pleaded guilty to both the charges. The learned Magistrate convicted him of both the charges and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. He also sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 25/-for the offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, has...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Tendolkar Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas511(Kar)
Chandrashekhar, J.1. These five appeals arise out of the order of the learned company judge (Narayana Pai J.) [1964]34 Comp. Cas. 34.in misfeasance proceedings against the directors and officers of a banking company by name. The Supreme Bank of India Ltd., taken on an application of the official liquidator during the course of its winding up proceedings. 2. Respondents Nos. I to 7, namely, S.G. Pant Balekundri, S.K. Samant, P.A. Tendolkar , D. R Angolkar, L.S. Ajagaonkar, R.W. Porwal and R.N. Kalghatgi , in the proceedings before the learned the company judge , were the directors of the bank while respondents Nos. 8 to13 were its officers and respondent No. 14, the auditor of the bank, During the pendency of the misfeasance proceedings, respondents Nos. I.4,II and 14 dies. The learned company judge held that the misfeasance proceedings could not be continued against the legal representatives of these four deceased respondents and dismissed the application as against those legal represe...
Tag this Judgment!Siddanna and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1280
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Yadgir in Criminal Case No. 4.3.1963 convicting the nine petitioners under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of the payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two weeks.2. The nine petitioners and another person by name Nazimul Saquib (A. 10) were prosecuted by the Sub-Inspector of Police of yadgir for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act.The charge against the petitioners is that they were found playing a game of cards with money for stakes in a common gambling house bearing No. 1, 2, 92 situated Station area in Yadgir town at about 10 P.M. on 9.7.1962. The charge against A. 10 Nazimul Saquib was that he was the occupier of the premises which was used as a common gambling house and had knowingly allowed the petitioners to indulge in gambling in the said house. All the ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›