Karnataka Court June 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.
Chamma Vs. Laxmichand and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mys316; 1970CriLJ1588
ORDERAhmed Ali Khan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, passed on 6-11-1969 in C. C. No. III of 1969 on the file of his Court, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order is as follows:--'On a careful consideration of these fads, I do not find sufficient grounds to proceed with the case and hence I refuse to take cognizance of the alleged offence.'The complaint was for an offence of house trespass punishable under Section 488, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by his order referred to above.2. Two contentions were advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention was that the Magistrate ought to have examined the complainant on oath after the complaint was filed and that the Magistrate has erred in not examining the complainant on oath. It was submitted that the provision of Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, is mandatory...
Annu Alias Kallappa Vs. Sheshu Gundappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant318; AIR1970Mys318; (1970)2MysLJ73
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. This second appeal is against a concurrent decision of both the Courts below.2. The salient facts necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows:A money decree in Original Suit No. 326 of 1936 on the file of the trial Court against the appellant's father was assigned to the respondent who put it into execution. During that period Sections 68 to 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been repealed. Hence the actual conduct of the sale was made over to the Collector by the Civil Court. The Collector sold two strips of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and fifteen gimtas respectively on 6-6-1944. They were purchased by the respondent for Rs. 1,290/- and the sale was confirmed on 22-11-1944. The respondent took possession on 8-10-1946.3. Subsequent thereto the appellant is said to have preferred an appeal to the State Government of Bombay against an appellate Order of the Divisional Commissioner dismissing his appeal. The State Government set aside th...
S. Kariappa Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant7; AIR1971Mys7; 1971CriLJ72; (1970)2MysLJ141
ORDERAhmed Ali Khan, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred against the decision of the Munsiff-Magistrate Hunsur in C. C. No. 450 of 1969. In that case, the petitioner was prosecuted on two counts, (1) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, for the contravention of the provision of Clause 3 of the Mysore Food Grains (Declaration of Stocks) Order 1967; (2) that he had committed an offence under Section 7 of the Act for the contravention of the Clause 8 of the Mysore Food Grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Order. The trying Magistrate acquitted the petitioner for the offence under the first count holding him not guilty but he held him guilty for the offence under the second count and convicted and sentenced the petitioner under that count to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It is agains...
Gangadhar Shivalingappa Nagmoti Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant309; AIR1970Mys309; (1970)2MysLJ59
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioner was a member of the Mysore Judicial Service in the rank of Subordinate Judge. In this petition, he has assailed the disciplinary proceedings against him culminating in an order retiring him from service compulsorily.2. We may now state the material facts which arc not in dispute.3. In the year 1963 the petitioner was working as the Principal Subordinate Judge in Banglore. On 8-10-1963 one Annapa Setty (examined as P. W. 9 in the disciplinary enquiry) submitted a complaint to the Director, Anti-Corruption, making certain allegations against the petitioner regarding the disposal of a steel almirah which had been attached in an execution case pending before him.4. The said Director forwarded that complaint to the High Court on 13-10-1963. On 14-10-1963 the Hon'ble Chief Justice requested Mr. Justice Narayana Pai to hold a preliminary enquiry on that complaint and to report. After holding a preliminary enquiry. Mr. Justice Narayana Pai sent a report in w...
Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai and Sons Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant46; AIR1971Mys46; [1971(21)FLR368]; (1971)ILLJ283Kant
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate Writ quashing a notification issued by the State Government fixing minimum rates of wages for certain classes of employees of the cashew-nut Industry. Although the prayer is in general terms for quashing the entire notification, the challenge is limited to the fixation of rates in respect of only one category of workers called the shellers. In this category, there are what may be described as two Sub-categories--(1) shellers who work with their own hands and wooden mallet and (2) shellers who operate shelling machines. For purposes of clarity we call the former 'hand shellers' and the latter 'machine shellers'.2. Both these hand shellers and machine shellers have throughout been paid wages on piece rate basis. Originally, when machines were brought into use, a distinction appears to have beenmade between the rate applicable to hand shellers and the rate applicable to machine s...
Bhimappa Kariyappa Gazi Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR653(KAR); [1971]80ITR653(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This writ petition preferred by an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in Mysore (respondent No. 2), dated March 31, 1960, which affirmed the order of assessment dated April 11, 1959, made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharwar (respondent No. 3), under section 19(4) of the Act. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the relative previous year being the year ended March 31, 1957. The petitioner challenged the order of assessment on several grounds and one of the grounds was that the Act did not levy any charge on the income derived prior to November 1, 1956, from lands that were situated in the former State of Bombay but included in the new State of Mysore. This court allowed the writ petition on the said ground by its order dated October 30, 1961, following its decision in Writ Petition No. 224 of 1959. 2. The ...
Verghese George Vs. the Officer Commanding, T.T.W.A.F. Station Yalahan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant302; AIR1970Mys302; (1970)2MysLJ55
Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner who was working as a civilian motor transport driver attached to the Airforce Station at Yelahanka, was served with a notice dated 11-11-1968, issued by the Officer Commanding the Station, under Rule 5 (I) (a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, terminating his services with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service or tender of the notice. The petitioner impugns the validity of the said notice, and contends that it is illegal as well as violative of his fundamental rights under the Constitution and that therefore, it should be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ.2. That the petitioner was entertained as a temporary Government servant is an admitted fact. It is also admitted that though he had completed four and a half years of service at the time of notice was issued, he had not been invested with the status of a quasi-permanent Government servant. Although it is a minimum qualificati...
R.P. Janardhana Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bangalore and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR305(KAR); [1971]79ITR305(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, R. P. Janardhana, is the son of late A. T. Parthasarathiah. The said Parthasarathiah was an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. He died on October 4, 1957. On November 28, 1968, a notice was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner under the Mysore Land Revenue Act stating that a sum of Rs. 11,206.73 is in arrears as agricultural income-tax and unless the said amount is paid, coercive steps would be taken to recover that amount. 2. This writ petition is directed against the said notice. The amount demanded as arrears of tax under the impugned notice represents the tax assessed on the petitioner's father under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner, though becomes liable to pay the tax assessed on his father under section 24 of the Act, he is not a defaulter and unless the petitioner is a defaulter the amount cannot be recovered from him under section 42...
M.A. HussaIn and anr. Vs. Panchamal Vasudev Ganapath Kamath and Brothe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant299; AIR1970Mys299; (1970)2MysLJ27
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the original defendants 2 and 3 against the decree passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Small Cause Suit No. 387 of 1963 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2. It is the plaintiffs case that M/s. Panchamal Vasudev Ganapath Kamath and Bros, is a registered partnership firm. The suit has been filed by the firm and in the name of the firm by its partner Sri Panchamal Vasudev Kamath. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 to 3 who were doing business in the name and style of 'National Trading Co. Bunder Mangalore' purchased from the plaintiff goods worth Rs. 4,077-87 P. on credit on 6-10-1960. The defendants having paid only a sum of Rs. 2,400 they are, according to the plaintiff, liable to pay the balance of Rs. 1,677-87 P. and interest thereon, 3. Defendant No, 1 denied his liability by contending that he was never a partner of 'National Trading Company' and that he had no deali...
C. Colaco Vs. Urban D'Silva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Kant297; AIR1970Mys297; (1970)2MysLJ50
M. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is the landlord. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 21 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Mysore Rent Control Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent-tenant and prayed that because the tenant had contravened said provisions, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the saidpremises. The trial Court held that the petitioner has made out the contravention of the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) and (d) of Section 21 (1) of the Act and passed an order of eviction. The appeal filed by the tenant was allowed by the learned District Judge of South Kanara. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner has not made out the contravention of provisions of Sub-clause, (b) and (d) of Section 21 (1) and allowed the appeal. In this revision petition, the petitioner challenges the said order passed by the learned District Judge. 2. Shri Ganapathy Bhat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contend...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »