Karnataka Court March 1971 Judgments
Gollaleshwar Dev and ors. Vs. Gangawa Kom Shantayya Math and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant1; AIR1972Mys1; (1971)2MysLJ147
Malimath, J.1.The questions referred for the decision of the Full Bench by Honniah and Venkataramiah, JJ. are as follows:'a) Whether the expression 'person having interest in the trust' occurring in Section 2 (10) and Section 50 of the Act includes trustees also;b) Whether two or more trustees of a public Trust can file a suit for a declaration that a property belongs to the Public Trust and for possession of the same from a person holding it adversely to the trust under Section 50 of the Act and for recovery of possession of such property.'The material facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiffs instituted the suit in the court of the District Judge at Bijapur for the following among other consequential reliefs: '(1) That it be declared that the suit premises belong to and appertain to the Public Trust 'Shree Gollaleshwar Dev' of Golger a Public Trust.(2) That possession of the suit premises be awarded to the Trustees of the temple on behalf of the Trust.' The 1st plaintiff is th...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Foundry Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore District Circle, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC259(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. These two writ petitions preferred by an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, are directed against the orders levying penalty under section 18-A of the Act. 2. The assessee is a dealer manufacturing castings and is styled as Ganesh Foundry. It was assessed to tax for the period 1st April, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, by an assessment order made on 11th April, 1967, levying tax on its turnover at the rate of four per cent. The assessee which is a registered dealer had collected tax from its customers at four per cent. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, against the said assessment order contending that the goods in question are not liable to tax at the rate of four per cent. but only at two per cent. That contention found favour with the appellate authority and the assessee's turnover was assessed at the rate of two per cent. The order of the appellate authority was made somet...
Tag this Judgment!Sripad Bhiku Nagavekar and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1636
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. Petitioners 1 and 2 were accused 1 and 2 respectively in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belgaum Cantonment, in C. C. No. 747 of 1967. In the course of this judgment they will be referred to as A-l and A-2. They have both been convicted for offences. Under Section 135 (b) (2) of the Customs Act and under the Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules 1963 hereinafter referred to as Rules. The first Accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month on each count Accused 2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to Undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months on each count. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that on 20-5-1968 at abou...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi Shrinivas Seth Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1352
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Rules, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. He has further been convicted for an offence Under Section 135(b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 90 days. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on him.2. The prosecution case is that on 27-5-1965 P.W. 1 Kami, the Inspector of Excise, Belgaum, noticed the accused sitting in -a compartment of Poona-Bangalore Mail train at about 11.30 hours. As he suspected that the accused was carrying some contraband goods, he questioned...
Tag this Judgment!V. Narayanappa Vs. Narayanappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant334; AIR1971Mys334; (1971)1MysLJ531
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the court below was justified in granting permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.2. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 425/64 on the file of the Munsiff, Chickkaballapur. The evidence in the suit was closed by 17-7-1967 and arguments were also heard in part on 24-7-1967. At that stage, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed. That application was rejected and a revision petition C. R. P. No. 1623 of 1967 (Mys) was filed before this court. This court held that the order declining to grant the amendment was one within the jurisdiction of the court below and hence could not be interfered with. After the dismissal of the revision petition by this court, the plaintiff filed I. A. 10 under Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that regarding adoption, due to some mist...
Tag this Judgment!Umamaheshwar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory and ors. Vs. Rama Rao ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant347; AIR1971Mys347; (1971)1MysLJ397
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The short question that arises in this revision petition is as to whether a revision is maintainable before this court against the order of the Court below?2. The few facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this question are these. The plaintiffs filed original suit No. 51/1 of 1959-60 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Raichur, and the court declared the shares of the plaintiffs and passed a preliminary decree under Order 20 Rule 15 C. P. C. on 29-2-1964. As against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed before the District Judge at Raichur, being Civil Appeal No. 34/4 of 1955 and cross-objections were also filed by the respondents.The learned appellate Judge considered three points that he framed for decision and modified the order of the trial court by his judgment dated 21-7-1966. Thereafter, a commissioner was appointed and on the report of the commissioner being given, the question arose as to whether the plaintiffs have a right re...
Tag this Judgment!K. Visnumoorthi Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ399
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He has also been convicted for contravening Rule 126 P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the convictions and sentences passed on him.2. The petitioner was travelling on 20-44967 by Poona Bangalore Mail. When the train arrived at Belgaum Railway Station at about 12-30 hours. P. W. 1. Inspector of Central Excise, entered the compartment and on suspicion he questioned the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!T.L. Krishna Upadhyaya and ors. Vs. Gowramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant258; AIR1971Mys258; (1971)1MysLJ354
1. This appeal is filed by defendants 19, 21 to 26 against the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, appointing Dr. M. L. Mariswamy as a receiver regarding the 1st item of the property in dispute. The only question before this Court is as to whether the appointment of Dr. Mariswamy should be accepted or as to whether defendant No. 19 should be appointed or the court below should be directed to make a fresh selection of an appropriate person for being appointed as receiver. 2. Absolute impartiality and thorough disinterestedness being the essential qualification for a receiver, a party to a litigation should not be appointed a receiver except under very special circumstances or with the consent of all parties. In England it is stated that a party to an action cannot propose himself as a receiver without the leave of the Court. It has been stated that 'It is the settled role that one of the parties to a cause shall not be appointed receiver without the consent o...
Tag this Judgment!H. Siddaveerappa and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore by Its Chief Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant200; AIR1971Mys200; (1971)1MysLJ384
A. Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. Five members of the Legislative Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council of the Mysore Legislature pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notices and programmes issued to the members of the Assembly and the Council intimating that the two Houses will meet on the 15th of March, 1971 and requesting them to attend the same, a writ of prohibition directing the respondents to forbear from commencing the business so intimated and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to summon a joint session of the Legislative Assembly and Council in accordance with the provisions of Article 176 of the Constitution and to prepare programme in accordance with the rules of procedure and the conduct of business in the Mysore Legislative Assembly.2. As the business programmed for the meeting includes consideration of the Annual Budget for the year 1971-72 and the relative appropriation bills and the contentions raised are in relation to a meeting of the...
Tag this Judgment!M. Korga Shetty and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1041
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioners before this Court were accused 1 and 2 in the Court of the Additional Munisiff cum First Class Magistrate, Udipi, in C. C. No. 624 of 1970. They, along with accused 3 to 5, were prosecuted for committing an offence Under Section 160. IPC The learned Magistrate found all the five accused guilty of the offence Under Section 160, IPC and convicted and sentenced each of the accused to a fine of Rs. 5/-, in default to undergo S. I. for 7 days. In this revision, the petitioners (accused 1 and 2) challenge the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on them.2. Sri P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the two essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 160, IPC He argues that there is no evidence on record to show that there was a fight between the petitioners and others and that the fight took place in a public place. Mer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »