Karnataka Court December 1967 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.
K.V. Narasappa Vs. Kamalamm and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant345; AIR1968Mys345; (1968)2MysLJ26
1. Defendant 1 in the suit out of which these appeals arise, was a building contractor in Shimoga. Under an agreement executed between him and the State Government on March 22, 1957, he undertook to construct a new receiving station in the electric colony at Shimoga. This construction involved the casting of a reinforced cement concrete beam 60' in length, and for this purpose two stone pillars were erected at each end, and the casting of the beam commenced at 9 a.m. in the morning on November 29, 1957. At 6 p.,. in the evening after the casting had been completed over a length of 45' and when the top layer with respect of to the remaining 15' was being laid, the beam came down pulling down along with it one of the stone pillars on which it was intended to be rested. Three workmen who were employed by the defendant in the casting of the beam were killed, when the pillar came down upon them and Venkatarmiah was one of those workmen.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was then bro...
Akkangamma and ors. Vs. R. Nageswariah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant266; AIR1968Mys266
(1) The original suit out of the proceedings in which these two civil revision petitions arise is No. 893 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff at Nanjangud. The suit was for recovery of possession, with mense profits and other incidental reliefs, of two items of immoveable properties. The Munsif framed eight issues, took evidence and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff only in respect of one half of the first item and dismissed the suit as to the rest of the claim. Both sides being dissatisfied with the decision appealed to the Civil Judge at Mysore; Regular Appeal No. 152/61 is by the plaintiff and Regular Appeal No. 155/61 that of the defendant. One of the grounds raised by the plaintiff-appellant was that the Munsif has failed to raise the necessary issues, in the suit. An interlocutory application also appears to have been made for amendment of the plaint. The Civil Judge took up the interlocutory application for consideration and allowed the prayer therein for amendment. He als...
Ghouse MohiuddIn Vs. Nagoji and ors. (Accused 1 to 3)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1967
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...
B.H. Shyamu Vs. Bhoopalam K. Rajashekhar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1243
ORDERK. Bhimiah, J.1. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 276/67 is the complainant and Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 372 of 1967 are accused in C.C. No. 8194 of 1966 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, who will be hereinafter referred to as the complainant and accused in the case.2. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint. The allegations in the complaint are that the prints and the publicity materials of the picture 'BEES SAAL BAAD' relating to Madras City, Tamilnad and Malabar were entrusted to the accused with a direction to hold the same on behalf of the complainant as Benamidars and to exploit the rights of distribution in the name of the complainant and make payments to him as and when they realized the amounts from exploitation. The accused went on following the directions upto 1st April 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›