Karnataka Court April 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.
Channiah Hyamegowda Vs. Hyamiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ183
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. On the complaint of one Channaiah, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tumkur, initiated proceedings Under Section 145, Criminal P.C. against Hyanmaiah and Bettaiah to prevent breach of peace arising out of disputes relating to survey No. 2/1 of Guddethippa sandra in Kunigal Taluk on 27-7,68. Notices were issued to Hyamaiah and Bettaiah. Even before these two persons appeared in Court, the land in dispute was attached by the Magistrate by his order dated 16-8-1968. Hyamaiah and Bettaiah, after they appeared in Court, filed their written statement?, denying the allegations made by Channaiah and the case was posted for enquiry on 8-11-1968. On that day the Magistrate passed the following order:Case called. The counsel for the 1st party absent. The counsel for the II party present. Case dismissed for the default of the counsel for 1st party.It is this order that is questioned in this revision petition.2. The object of Section 145, Criminal P.C., is not to provide parties ...
Vanajakshamma and ors. Vs. P. Gopala Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mys305; 1970CriLJ1584
ORDERM. Santosh, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings taken under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The 1st petitioner before this Court claims to be the wife of the respondent and the petitioners 2 and 3 are said to be her minor children born to the respondent. The 1st petitioner claimed a total sum of Rs. 150/- per month towards maintenance of herself and her 3 minor children. After the enquiry the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The petitioners challenge the correctness of the said order passed by the learned Magistrate in this revision petition.2. Sri Biazuddin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the learned Magistrate, after having accepted the evidence let in by the petitioners, was wrong in dismissing the petition. He has pointed out that the learned Magistrate has also rejected the evidence let in on behalf of the respondent, but yet strangely dismissed the petition. The learned Magistrate has also given a finding t...
Anna Rao Vs. Bandappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant63; AIR1971Mys63; (1970)2MysLJ442
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench for opinion is: 'Whether the instrument in question is not liable for stamp duty under Item 20 of the Schedule of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957?' 2. The English translation of the document which is in Kannada reads thus: Date 23-1-1963,Sale deed executed in favour of Siddappa s/o Erappa Tiralapur, resident of Karakmukul village, Chinocholi Taluk, District Gulbarga, by Bandappa s/o Sangappa Para, resident of Karakmukul village, Chincholi Taluk, is as follows: The land 'Anehole' bearing Survey No. 157-A, measuring 14 acres and 29 guntas, assessed at 5-57, stands entered in the patta in my name and I havesold the same for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-(Three thousand) of India currency. At present, a sum of Rs. 2,700/- (Rupees two thousand and seven hundred) in cash has been received. I have delivered the said survey number to your possession. I have agreed to receive the remaining amount in the ensuing Uganda day. For getting the patta made...
Shivamma and ors. Vs. A.B. Shivanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Kant167; AIR1972Mys167
Santhosh, J.1. The question of law referred to the Full Bench for opinion is:--'Whether the expression: 'required number' occurring in Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act has reference to the number fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) or to number eleven referred to in Sub-section (6) of that section?'To enable us to decide the question of law it is necessary to refer to a few facts of the case. Under Section 5(1) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act. 1959 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Deputy Commissioner Mysore, determined that the Village Panchayat of Have shall consist of 13 members. Of these, nine were general seats, while two seats each under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Mysore Village Panchayat Rules, were reserved for women and scheduled castes. At the elections held in March 1968, nominations were filed for the 9 general seats and one seat reserved for women. Ten candidat...
A.K. Appanna Setty and Sons and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore, by Its C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant289; AIR1970Mys289; (1970)1MysLJ512
ORDER1. The petitioners are wholesaleand/or retail dealers in food grains in Mysore State. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have assailed the constitutionality of certain provisions of-(i) The Mysore Food grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licencing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Wholesale Licensing Order); and (ii) The Mysore Food grains (Retail) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Retail Licencing Order). 2. These two Orders were made by the Government of Mysore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and delegated by the Central Government to the State Government under Section 5 of the Act.3. Before dealing with the contentions of the petitioners, it is useful to set out the salient features of these two orders.4. Sub-Clause (e) of Clause 2 of the wholesale Licencing Order defines the term 'Whole- sale dealer' as a person engaged in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›