Karnataka Court February 1971 Judgments
G.S. Joshi Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1663
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner who is the Manager of the State Bank of Mysore. Madhugiri Branch was prosecuted for an offence under Rule 8 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Rule 26 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishment Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules.2. The case of the prosecution was that when the Labour Inspector. Madhugiri Circle inspected the Bank he found that the Manager did not maintain the Leave with Wages Register in form No. F and, therefore the Labour Inspector filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner on 22-8-1969 on the ground that he the petitioner) had contravened Rule 8 of the Rules and therefore liable for punishment under Rule 26 thereof.3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Labour Inspector was examined as PW. 1. Relying on his evidence the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the offence was proved and therefore he convicted the accused unde...
Tag this Judgment!Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MysLJ240; [1971]27STC379(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. These are two writ petitions preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Bangalore, and are directed against the assessment orders made by the Commercial Tax Officer, 8th Circle, Bangalore (respondent No. 2) for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The common question that arises for decision in these writ petitions is whether the proceeds of the sales made through the canteen run by the petitioner-company for the benefit of its employees are exigible to tax under the Act. 2. The petitioner-company has its factory in Bangalore, wherein it employs more than 4,000 workers. The business of the petitioner-company is the manufacture and sale of automobile parts. Its memorandum and articles of association do not empower it to carry on any business in food and drinks. Under section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, a statutory obligation is imposed on the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Channegowda and ors. Vs. Krishnegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1480
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2-1-1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chickmagalur Sub Division, Chickmagalur, Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in SI. Cr. Misc. 21/70-71 directing the wells to be thrown open for the public of Koeuvalli village and ordering the petitioners to throw open the wells and to allow water through the pipes as usual for the use of the public.2. The few facts that have given rise to this petition are as follows: Petitioners were respondents 1 to 3 in the lower court. It appears that by 13-10-1970 the regularly appointed Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chickmagalur Sub Division was not on duty and as such, the Tahsildar was acting as in-charge assistant Commissioner, Chickmagalur Sub Division. He received information in regard to the facts in this case and then, he examined two witnesses and found that action Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Parvathamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1038
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. This is a reference made Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned Sessions Judge of Chitradurga, recommending to this Court, the order of costs of Rs. 50/- directed to be paid by the complainant to the accused in C. C. No. 1290 of 1968, be set aside.2. The complainant, who is respondent No. 1 before this Court, filed a complaint against the two accused-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for an offence Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code before the First Class Magistrate, Chitradurga. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant Paravathamma. Thereafter, he also recorded the statement of two of her witnesses and took the case on file and issued summons to the two accused for an offence Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, of the case, the Magistrate acquitted both the accused, but acting Under Section 516-AA of the amended Criminal P.C. (Mysore) asked the complainant to show cause why she sh...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Gajanana Hegde Vs. Ganapati Umamaheshwar Hegde and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant336; AIR1971Mys336
Honniah, J.1. The question in this case is whether in a suit to recover possession of land on which areca trees are standing the valuation for purposes of court-fee should be under Clause (b) of Section 7 (2) of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as Act or as under Clause (d) thereof. The plaintiff paid court-fee under Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act in the trial court although he valued the land in question on the basis of the actual market value for purposes of Jurisdiction. No objection seems to have been taken in the trial court regarding payment of court-fee. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant filed an appeal. When the appeal (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1966) was pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Karwar, the court-fee Examiner during the course of inspection raised objection that the defendant who had filed the appeal should pay court-fee in respect of arecanut gardens under Section 7 (2) (d) of the Act. The le...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalamma Vs. Laxminarayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant211; AIR1971Mys211; (1971)1MysLJ307
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The appellant Kamalamma is the mother of a child by name Raja alias Nagaraja alias Nagendra. She filed a petition before the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in Misc. No. 25 of 1964 under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing her as the guardian of the person of the aforesaid child. That petition was presented to the Court on 1-2-1964. The respondent Lakshminarayanarao alias Shamanna is the husband. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was consummated sometime during the year 1961. The said child was born to them on 13-4-1962. 2. The appellant in the course of the petition alleged that during her stay with the respondent in her father-in-law's house, she was being ill-treated by her husband and her father-in-law and that she was not being looked after properly. She further averred that she was taken to the MentalHospital at Bangalore under false pretext even though she was not mentally unsound for being treated there and that aft...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishna Kalluraya Vs. Ramachandra Kalluraya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant289; AIR1971Mys289; (1971)1MysLJ403
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. This petition under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. is by the second defendant in O. S. No. 79 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore. It is directed against an order refusing to stay further proceedings in the suit on the basis of a request made by him in I. A. IV. The said application was filed under Section 151 of the Civil P. C.2. The material facts are these: The property concerned in the suit, which was one for partition and separate possession, originally belonged to three brothers. One of the brothers sold his 1/3 share in favour of the plaintiff on 23-3-1967. The other two brothers sold their shares to the first defendant in the suit on 7-1-1967. It is' the case of the second defendant (the revision petitioner) thathe was a purchaser from 'Khayam-gani' tenants of all their rights, title and interest in the whole of the property. On the basis of the pleadings in the suit one of the issues raised is as follows:--'Whether the sale...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Raman Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant305; AIR1971Mys305; (1971)1MysLJ502
1. The principal question for determination in this appeal is whether the lease in favour of the defendant (appellant) had validly terminated by efflux of time or whether there was holding over by the lessee of the leasehold property as contemplated under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act,2. The circumstances under which this question and several subsidiary questions, to which reference will be made later, have arisen, may be briefly stated as follows:--The plaintiff is the Corporation of the City of Bangalore represented by its Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) who has brought the suit against the defendant. The suit property belongs to the Corporation and is situate at Kalasipalya Bus Stand. The Corporation is a body corporate established under the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The property which is a building was leased to the defendant on 1-7-61 for a period of 3 years on a monthly rent of...
Tag this Judgment!Chikke Gowda Vs. Chikkarajegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1043
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 23-2-1970 styled as 'Cancellation of the preliminary order Under Section 145, Criminal P.C. passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandavpura. in Case No. C. Misc. 5/68-69.2. The few facts that are necessary for a decision in this case may be narrated in brief as follows:In regard to a property situated at Kennal village, Pandavapura Taluk, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on information received by him, as per Section 145 (1) of the Criminal P.C. issued a preliminary order on 20-9-1968. The petitioner was the I Party and the respondent was the II Party before him. They appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in response to the preliminary order and filed their written statements. In due course both the parties produced their documentary evidence and the evidence of witnesses in form of affidavits. Final hearing of the matter Under Section 145 (4) of the Criminal P.C. was fixed by the learned Sub-D...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanthijabi Vs. P.S. Abdulla
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1474
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22-9-1970 passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 2555 of 1970 ordering that A-3 in the case is to be dropped from the proceedings and directing the complainant to proceed against the other accused persons i.e.. A-l, 2 and 4 at that stage. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-complainant that this order is on the face of it illegal and unsustainable in law.2. The few facts that have given rise to this petition may be narrated briefly as follows:This petitioner as a complainant filed a private complaint on 17-11-1966 in the Court of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, against three persons alleging an offence punishable Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Her complaint was that the said three ac cused persons, of whom the present respondent-1 was not one, dishonestly and fraudulently secured her L. T.M. to a document which ultimately she came to be informed was a power o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›