Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)1MysLJ237; [1968]21STC305(Kar)
ORDERSadasivayya, J. 1. These two revision petitions have been filed under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner in both the cases is the State of Mysore, by the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Gadag. The respondent is the same person in both these revision petitions and he is unrepresented. He had been assessed to tax under the Act and having committed default in the payment of the same, the petitioner had filed two applications under section 13(b) of the Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Gadag, praying for the recovery by the Magistrate of the amount due from the respondent, as if it were a fine imposed by the Magistrate. Those two applications having been dismissed by that Magistrate, these two revision petitions have been filed against those orders made by the learned Magistrate. 2. The learned Magistrate has dismissed those two applications on two grounds. One of the grounds is that at th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1968CriLJ1669
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, recommending that the order dated 5.6.1967 in C.C. No. 872 of 1967 passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri, be set aside.2. The facts that have given rise to this reference are these : One Doddakavalappa filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri under Sections 143, 448, 427, 506 and 323 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code. His complaint was registered. Before the trial, it was reported that Doddakavalappa died. The learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioners under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Some days later, Gowramma, widow of the deceased Doddakvalappa filed another complaint against the same petitioners for the same offence of which they had been acquitted. The learned Magistrate registered the complaint in C.C. No. 872 of 1967 on 31.5.1967 and issued notice to the petitioners. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR118
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an unsuccessful applicant for admission to the pre-professional course leading to M. B. B. S. Degree in the Mysore Medical College for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents (the State of Mysore and the Chairman of the Selection Committee for admission to the Government Medical Colleges, Bangalore Medical College, Bangalore), to admit the petitioner to the pre-professional course leading to M. B. B. S. Degree.2. Respondent No. 1 the State of Mysore has framed rules called the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules by Notification dated the 19th May 1967 for admission to pre-professional course leading to M. B. B. S. Degree in the Government Medical College.Under Rule (6) of the said Rules, 30 per cent of the seats are reserved for persons belonging to the 'backward classes'. The procedure for Selection has been laid down by Rule 11 which provides that the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant309; AIR1968Mys309
Kalagate, J.(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dated 11th July 1961, made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division Belgaum, dismissing his suit to recover the suit schedule properties as the adopted son of one Venkatesh.(2) By his plaint dated 25th September 1958, he alleged that one Krishnaji was a Watandar Kulkarni of Holihosur in Bailhongal Taluk. He had two sons--Venkatesh and Shama Rao and a daughter by name Mathurabai, who is defendant 3 in the suit. Shama Rao died on 29th September 1941 without a male issue, Chimmabai defendant 1--is his wife, and Alakananda--defendant 2--is his daughter. Venkatesh was the sole surviving coparcener; plaintiff is related to Venkatesh, being the grandson of Ranga Rao, his maternal uncle. Venkatesh in order to continue his line and to obtain salvation, adopted plaintiff with the ceremonies on the 16th December 1941 and, on the same day, executed a registered deed of adoption. A photograph of the adoption ceremony was also taken. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant100; AIR1969Mys100; (1968)1MysLJ216
ORDER1. The petitioner is a landlord who sought eviction under Clauses (a) and (f) of Section 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The original lessee was certain Appaji Rao and when the application for eviction was made, he was dead. Respondents 5 to 11 in this revision petition are all his legal representatives. Respondents 1 to 4 were impleaded as parties to the proceedings in the Court below on the ground that there was an impermissible sub-lease to those four persons by Appaji Rao in the year 1962. The eviction was sought firstly, on the ground that the lessee was in arrears and secondly, on the ground that there was a sub-lease without the landlord's concurrence. The application was resisted by the sub-lessees who asserted that they were the lessees and that Appaji Rao was only a benamidar for them. Neither of the two Courts below accepted the contention that the lease was a benami transaction. But while the Munsiff gave the landlord the order sought by him on both the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an application which purports to be under Section 491 of the Criminal P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is one Seetharaman who has been arrayed as accused No. 6 in Criminal Case No. 9023 of 1966 on the file of the City Magistrate, Bangalore. We are informed that the said case is still in the preliminary stages of the enquiry before the learned Magistrate. According to the charge-sheet, the allegations against the present petitioner are as follows:That between 21.8.1965 and 22.3.1966, the-petitioner (A-6) along with the other (incused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy at Bangalore, Trichy, Kudli, Mysore and other places with the common object of manufacturing forged ten rupee currency notes knowing them to be forged, to purchase or sell forged ten rupee currency notes and that thereby they all committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The other charge so far as the present petitioner is concerne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant22; AIR1969Mys22; 1969CriLJ123
ORDER1. This is a reference under section 483 of the code of Criminal Procedure, by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, recommended to set aside the order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere, in Criminal Case No. 2892 of 1967.2. The facts which have given rise to this reference are these: The Sub-Inspector of Police Davanagere filed a charge sheet on 25-5-1966 against one A. G. Ramaswamy (respondent in the reference) in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere, alleging that he was in possession of some brandy bottles without a valid permit and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12(a) read with section 59(b) of the Mysore Prohibition Act. For one reason or the other, the respondent did not appear before the Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings under section 249 Cr.P.C. on 14-6-66.After nearly 13 months the prosecution filed an application on 28-7-1967, requesting the Court to revive the proceedings, sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant252; AIR1969Mys252; (1968)1MysLJ221
ORDER1. This is a tenant's petition under S. 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and lease) Control Act, 1954. It is directed against an order in appeal made by the learned District Judge Raichur, in C M A No. 1/5 of 1965, on 30-10-1965. The said appeal had been preferred by the Respondent-landlord against an order of the Asst. Commissioner and Rent Controller, Koppal, in File No. 8/RC/58-59, made on 25-11-1964.2. The petition for eviction was filed by the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenant, the petitioner before this Court, among other grounds, had raised the objection that there was no tenancy and, in fact, he was the owner of the premises in question. He has claimed ownership on the ground that be had purchased the property from the mother of the petitioner and that owing to subsequent differences an understanding was arrived at that he should relinquish his rights in favour of the vendor on her repaying him a sum of Rs. 300. Since this sum was not paid, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant305; AIR1968Mys305; (1968)1MysLJ146
Chandrashekhar, J. (1) The effect and the validity of Section 2 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act, 1963') arise for decision in these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. That Act received the assent of the President on 23-5-1964 and came into force on 6-3-1964.(2) The petitioners were Jagirdars or their co-shares of Hangandi Jagir and 3 other villages in Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. It would appear that these villages were grated in inam to their ancestors by the then Badashah of Bijapur in the 17th Century. later these inam villages formed part of the then Badashah of Bijapur in the 17th Century. later these inam villages formed part of the then State of Sangli which merged in the then Province of Bombay with effect from 8-3-1948. Thereafter these villages were included in Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. On reorganisation of States these villages are in the new S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1968CriLJ1089
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Raichur, in case No. 12/1 of 1967, dismissing the complaint petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents for charges under Sections 325 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint on 1.2.65 against the respondents. Respondent 1 was a typist in the Sadar Bazar Police Station at Raichur and respondent 2, a police constable at the same police station. Respondent 3 is a resident of Raichur Town. The petitioner in his complaint petition alleged that respondents 1 and 2 who were working in the Sadar Bazar Police Station sent for him at the instance of respondent 3, Parwatamma and assaulted him, caused bleeding injury to his nose by giving blows and that when he approached the doctor for treatment, he was directed by the Doctor to come through the police for treatment that the petitioner thereafter went to the Court for filing a compla...
Tag this Judgment!