Karnataka Court March 1971 Judgments
B.S. Nagraj Vs. S. Manjappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant163; AIR1972Mys163
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is. whether the value for the purpose of payment of court-fees, should also be the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, in a suit falling under Section 26(c) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts which lie behind this petition are as follows: The 1st respondent before me. instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge at Shimoga for permanent injunction complaining interference from the petitioner. The suit was valued at Rs. 100/- for the purpose of payment of court-fees under Section 26(c) of the Act and the court-fee paid accordingly. But for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit was valued at Rs. 15,000/- being the market value of the suit schedule property. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Judge's court contending that ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Pandurang Purusappa Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1355
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the Order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, North Kanara, Karwar, Under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as judicial authority appointed by the State Govt. by its Notification S. O. No. 5886 dated 13-12-1966.2. Certain commodities had been seized by the police from the respondents on the ground that one or the other Food Control Orders had been violated by them. Proposals were put up to the Deputy Commissioner North Kanara, Under Section 6-A of the Act for confiscating the said commodities. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order confiscating the commodities to the Government and as against that, an appeal was preferred to the judicial authority Under Section 6-C of the Act. The judicial authority set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner and, hence the State, aggrieved by the said order, has challenged the same in this petition....
Tag this Judgment!R. Chinnaswamy Gounder Vs. C.H. Laxminarayana Hariyachar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant20; AIR1972Mys20; (1971)2MysLJ228
H.B. Datar, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff and has challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge. Mysore on 18th November 1970 allowing I. A. No. 6 vacating the injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff and appointing the Tahsildar Mysore Taluk as the receiver to take possession of the suit schedule properties and to manage and cultivate the same.2. The plaintiff has filed O. S. No. 144/69 on 3-11-69 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been cultivating the land as tenant under the first defendant since 25th July 1956 agreeing to pay a cash annual rent of Rs. 300/-. His further case is that defendants 1 to 3 have colluded and are trying to destroy his right as a tenant and so has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction. An application for interim injunction was filed. The learned trial Judge issued an order of inte...
Tag this Judgment!The Ii Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Harbour, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant215; AIR1972Mys215
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. This revision application raises a question of interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The respondent is the owner of survey number 199/3C and he purchased the same from one Kanthappa on 28-8-1964. After this purchase, proceedings commenced for the acquisition of this land and the preliminary notification was published on 29-9-1964 and an award was passed on 2-4-1967. It may be noted that even though the purchase in the present case by the respondent was prior to the preliminary notification, the present respondent was not notified about any one of the matters, i.e., about the proposed acquisition of the land and about the award; having come to know of the passing of the award, he filed an application under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the court. 3. The objections raised by the respondent was that the petition was not maint...
Tag this Judgment!i.J.J. Rebello Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Mysore, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant318; AIR1971Mys318; (1971)2MysLJ68
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Mysore (Commissioner of Stamps), Bangalore has referred this case under Section 54 (1) of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act' for determination of the duty, if any, with which the Instrument to be executed by Mrs. Elizabeth Appollinaris Rebello and nine others, (hereinafter called the 'declarants') is chargeable. 2. The draft of the instrument was presented before the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Chickmagalur, for adjudication under Section 31 (1) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that the Instrument is a 'conveyance, of right in properties of the value of Rupees 22,75,000/- not otherwise specifically provided for by the Schedule and as such chargeable with a Stamp Duty of Rupees 1,02,375/- under Article 20 of the Schedule to the Act. In the appeal preferred against the said order, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority took a contrary view that the Instrument is not a deed of 'c...
Tag this Judgment!T. Muddu Veerappa Sons and K.H. Veeranna Setty Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant164; AIR1972Mys164; (1972)1MysLJ96
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this Civil revision petition is whether the petitioner-plaintiff must prove negligence or misconduct of the railways in a suit for compensation for the loss of a portion of the maize, due to pilferage.2. On 15-9-1966. Messrs. Appayappa Veerappa Bidri. Merchants. Gokak, despatched 170 bags of maize under invoice No. 6 to Bangalore City and sent the R. R. through a bank. The plaintiff after paying the amount received the R. R. and took open delivery of the goods at the Bangalore City Railway Station. At that time, it was found that there was a shortage of 500 kgs. of maize due to the bags having been cut and maize having been removed during the transit. The plaintiff brought the suit for compensation for the loss which he had suffered, estimated by him at Rs. 335-92 P. alleging negligence, carelessness and failure on the part of the railways and their servants to exercise care and deligence.3. The suit was resi...
Tag this Judgment!Tholamamidi Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Singam Setty Venkataramiah Setty and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant293; AIR1971Mys293; (1971)1MysLJ494
E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Bellary in O. S. No, 802 of 1964 by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3909-93 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant for Rs. 3550-63 on 15-8-1962 with interest of Rs. 358-50 thereon and a sum of Rs. 0-80 Ps. towards demand charges. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, this is what the plaintiff stated :'The defendant was borrowing sums now and then from the plaintiff's shop for his family necessity. After settlement of the entire account and account was stated between the parties on 15-8-62, the defendant became due in a sum of Rs. 3550-63 nP.. for which consideration, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on that date agreeing to repay the same on demand together with interest at 12% per annum. Till now, the defendant failed to pay any amount towards the suit pronote debt.'In effect, what the plaintiff thereby meant was that the promissory not...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.S. Rao and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ405
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the preliminary order passed under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Division. Bangalore, in S. P. No. 14 of 1970-71. on 29-1-1971.2. The petitioners were respondents in the said case before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The preliminary order is a very short one and all that it reads to show is that the Sub-Inspector of Police Jalahalli Police Station, had reported that the present petitioners were employees of Bharath Electronics Limited. Bangalore : that they were members of the Bharath Electronics Employees' Union; that they were in rival terms with the members of Bharath Electronics Karmlka Sangh : that they were indulging in violent and unlawful acts; and that thereby there was likelihood of breach of peace in the limits of Jalahalli Police Station. It further reads to show that theref...
Tag this Judgment!Siddanna Bovi and ors. Vs. Hanumantha Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant23; AIR1972Mys23; (1971)2MysLJ62
1. The defendants in the suit out of which this appeal arises are the appellants herein.2. Even though in the plaint the relief prayed for is mentioned in a very Involved way, the case of the plaintiff in effect was that a registered usufructuary mortgage deed executed on 26-8-1955 by him in favour of the defendants was void on the ground that it was not supported by consideration and for possession of six items of the suit properties the possession of which had been handed over to the defendants under the aforesaid deed. The plaintiff pleaded that even though the above document had been executed by him, the defendants had not paid any amount, and therefore, the defendants were not entitled to remain any longer in possession of the properties which were given as security for the mortgage. According to the plaintiff the document being a void one, the defendants had no right to remain in possession of the suit properties and enjoy them. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit for a de...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Guruswamy and Co. Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: [1971]27STC591(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner who is an excise contractor has prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to the deduction of the shop rental under rule 6(4)(j) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, in respect of the assessment for the year ended on 30th June, 1965. The basis of the petitioner's claim is that shop rental is excise duty. In State of Mysore v. D. Cawasji & Co. : [1971]2SCR799 , the Supreme Court has held that shop rent paid by an excise contractor is not excise revenue. That decision follows an earlier decision of the same court in Shinde Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, and Others : [1967]1SCR548b . Therefore, it is clear that the shop rental is not excise duty liable to be deducted under rule 6(4)(j) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules while determining the total taxable turnover. In that view, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. 2. Petition dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »