Karnataka Court December 1970 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.
S.R. Chanaveerappa Vs. B. Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant184; AIR1971Mys184; (1971)1MysLJ137
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether a Civil Court can determine the 'Vakalathnama' of an advocate on the ground that he is likely to be called as a witness on behalf of the party to the suit.2. The above question has arisen in this way:The plaintiff in O. S. No. 42/1969 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, preferred an application, purporting to be under Section 151, Civil P. C. to the effect that the Advocate namely Mr. O. Veera Basappa who is appearing on behalf of the defendant in the suit, should be called upon to withdraw from the suit. The ground alleged is that the Advocate had participated in a 'Panchayathi' held in connection with the differences that had arisen regarding a portion of properties between the plaintiff on the one hand and the father of the defendant on the other. There were other panchayatdars too. As to what transpired at such 'Panchayati' and whether any decisions of a binding character were...
L. Mahadev Vs. A.K. Anantha Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant252; AIR1971Mys252; (1971)1MysLJ238
K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, J. 1. The respondent in these two appeals filed O. S. No. 78/70 and O. S. No. 88/70 on the file of the Civil Judge. Civil Station. Bangalore, The earlier suit is one for the recovery of Rs. 21.065/- said to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The second is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,563/- partly towards arrears of rent and partly towards mesne profits and for the recovery of possession of the property. These two cases were being posted together as the parties in both the cases are the same. The cases came up for hearing after series of adjournments on 2-4-1970. On 2-4-1970, the order sheet In O. S. No. 78/70 reads as follows :-- 'Defendant's counsel prays for adjournment. Plaintiff's counsel opposes. Defendant's counsel says, he has to obtaincertain copies and is not ready to get onwith evidence. Adjourned as a finalchance on 14-4-1970 on costs of Rupees15.00'. In O. S. No. 88/70, the order sheet reads as follows:-- 'P. W. 1 examined ...
A.T.P. Shivachandra Vs. Swarna Silk House and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant255; AIR1971Mys255; (1971)1MysLJ209
B. Venkataswami, J. 1. This is an appeal purporting to be under Section 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is preferred by the respondent in Insolvency Case No. 12/67 on the file of the Second Addi-tional District Judge, Bangalore, and is directed against an order made therein on 4-2-1970 whereby it was held that the insolvency application was maintainable. 2. The few relevant facts are as follows: The appellant was a partner of Swarna Silk House a partnership firm consisting of three partners. It is alleged that the appellant was only a working partner and as such entitled to draw not more than Rs. 3,000/-, a year from the firm, subject to a share in the profits. The respondents' case is that in a certain year the appellant drew Rs. 26,000/- and odd in excess of the amount permissible as per the agreement of partnership. It would appear, he had alienated the only property standing in his name in favour of his wife for a nominal consideration...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›