Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant141; AIR1969Mys141; ILR1968KAR1003; (1968)2MysLJ355
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order made on 7-8-1967 in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1964 on the file of the learned Munsiff of Madhol, permitting the plaintiffs therein to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1(2)(b) C.P.C.2. The few facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as follows: The respondents in this revision were the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1964 on the file of the learned Munsiff at Madhol. They sued the defendant (the revision petitioner) for mere recovery of possession of property bearing R. S. No. 108 at Junnur village of Madhol Taluk, with costs and mesne profits. In the suit the prayer was confined to one Revenue Survey number specified above.3. After the pleadings were completed and the suit was posted for evidence, the plaintiffs filed Ex. 76 under O. 23 R. 1 C.P.C. praying for permission to withdraw from the suit and liberty to file a fresh suit. The ground stated therein is that the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1970]40CompCas674(Kar)
Narayana Pai, J.1. These are companion application which raise question as to th nature and extent of the rights and powers claimed by the Bank of Maharashtra Ltd. the application in Company Application No. 143 of 1967, under or by virtue of certain deeds of mortgage of immovable properties and hypothecation of movables executed in its favour by the company - Yallamma Cotton, Woollen and Silk Mills Company Ltd. 2. There is little or no controversy about the facts and circumstances year 1966. In the month of March, 1966, it was obliged to lay off its labour force. By about September of that year, it had almost completely ceased working. 3. Early in June , 1967, a creditor of the company presented to this court, Company Petition no. 4 of 1967 for compulsory winding up of the company. After some adjournments granted at the request of the company which was trying to secure financial assistance from the Central Government an order for compulsory winding up was made on 5th October, 1967. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant280; AIR1969Mys280; [1970]40CompCas466b(Kar)
ORDER1. These are Companion Applications which raise questions as to the nature and extent of the rights and powers claimed by the Bank of Maharashtra Limited, the applicant in Company Application 143 of 1967, under or by virtue of certain deeds of mortgage of immovable properties and hypothecation of movables executed in its favour by the Company Yallamma Cotton, Woollen and Silk Mills Company Limited.2. There is little or no controversy about the facts and circumstances necessary for the determination of the points of law raised by the parties.3. The Company encountered considerable financial difficulties early in the year 1966. In the month of March 1966, it was obliged to lay off its labour force. By about September of that year, it had almost completely ceased working.4. Early in June 1967, a creditor of the Company presented to this Court Company Petition No. 4 of 1967 for compulsory winding up of the Company. After some adjournments granted at the request of the Company which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1969]23STC515(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. On 29rd September, 1966, the Commercial Tax Officer First Circle, Bangalore, issued a notice to the petitioner demanding the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,960.98 as penalty in respect of the default stated to have been committed by him in the payment of the tax determined to be one. From the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer by which he imposed a penalty, the petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner who dismissed it on the ground that the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer was not an appealable order. But, in the further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal negatived the contention that the order was not an appealable order. So, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the appeal to him for disposal on merits. 2. In this revision petition presented by the State, the contention raised is that the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer is not an appealable order and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR1049; [1969]23STC407(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. A certain Chadda was the proprietor of a cycle trading company in Bijapur, and in respect of the period between 1st April 1960, and 31st March, 1961, the concerned Commercial Tax Officer made a provisional assessment of his turnover by which he provisionally determined under section 12-B of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, which will be referred to as the Act, the sales tax payable by him to be Rs. 1,481.28. But the final assessment made under section 12 disclosed that the tax really payable by the dealer was only Rs. 900. So there was a refund of the sum of Rs. 581.28 which represented the excess collection But by then a penalty had been imposed on the dealer for default in the payment of the tax payable under the provisional assessment within the time allotted. The dealer claimed a refund of the amount recovered from him by way of such penalty to the extent of the reduction in the determination of the tax by the final assessment. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer refuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ757; (1968)2MysLJ511
ORDER1. The above revision petition arises out of the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8 of 1966 regarding the disposal of scooter which was seized from the petitioner, to the second respondent-complainant Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh or Bowring Hospital.2. Facts in brief are these:--3. The scooter in question belonged to the second respondent (complainant). On 3-9-1965, it was lost at the Bowring Hospital at Bangalore. Immediately after the scooter was lost, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Commercial Street Police who registered a case for an offence of theft in Crime No. 262/65. Investigation was being conducted by the police of the Commercial Street Police Station. In the meanwhile, on 10-11-1965, the scooter was found deserted near Viranchipuram. The police of Viranchipuram found the scooter abandoned on the road and seized it and produced it before the Tahsildar and Administrative Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Mys160; 1969CriLJ622; (1968)2MysLJ532
ORDER1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 6-12-1967 made by the second Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1967 on the file of his Court. The petitioner was the first party in that Criminal Miscellaneous Case and the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore was the second party. In that case, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the second party had forcibly dispossessed him of the schedule land and that there was likelihood of a breach of the peace. He prayed that proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. be taken, that the schedule land be attached and a Receiver appointed to manage the said land and that a declaration be made that the first party was in possession of that land. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the Police. The Police of Madiwala submitted a report to the effect that the second party had taken possession of this land on 3-11-1967, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR965
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, published on August 18, 1964, a draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the operation of its services on certain routes in the Districts of Coorg, South Kanara and Chikmagalur. This scheme which will be referred to as the Mangalore Scheme in the course of this judgment, was approved by the Chief Minister under Section 68-D of the Act on July 28, 1967. The approved scheme is impeached in these ten writ petitions on more than one ground by persons who were operating on some one or the other of the notified routes enumerated in the approved scheme.2. On behalf of the petitioners six submissions were made. The first was that there was no application of the judicious mind by the Chief Minister to the question whether the scheme was in public interest and also to the question whether it results in an efficient, adequate econo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant255; AIR1969Mys255; (1968)2MysLJ273
ORDER1. The Petitioner was the 2nd defendant in Case No. 298/1 of 1966 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga. For the purpose of this revision petition, it is enough to refer to the two reliefs that the plaintiff has sought. One was for declaration and possession of the suit property valuing it at 25 times the land revenue; the second one was, for relief of declaration that the plaintiff has a preferential right to purchase the western portion of the suit land belonging to the 1st defendant and now sold to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are impleaded as respondents in this petition. In respect of the above relief of declaration the plaintiff valued it at Rs. 250/- under Section 24(d) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The 2nd defendant questioned the correctness of the valuation and the court-fee paid by the plaintiff. On this, the trial court framed the 7th issue in the case which is as hereunder:'Do defendants prove that the court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant341; AIR1969Mys341; ILR1968KAR957
1. This appeal by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 38 of 1968 on the file of the learned First Munsiff, Bangalore, is directed against an Order made on 20-5-1968 by the learned District Judge (sitting as Vacation Judge), Bangalore, refusing to grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendant herein from proceeding with the execution of laying foundation or other construction in the suit 'C' schedule premises.2. A few facts may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is the owner of a premises in Siddartha Nagar on Dr. T. C. M. Royan Road, Bangalore. The defendant is a Joint Stock Company carrying on business of manufacture of textile goods. The Company proceeded to put up a multistoreyed building opposite to the plaintiff's premises across the road separating them. The width of the road is about 12ft. according to the plaintiff. which is not admitted by the defendant. In view of the nature of the soil, the company had to erect the structure by driving several concrete piles to serve t...
Tag this Judgment!