Karnataka Court July 1971 Judgments
Abdul Kareem Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ217
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 98 of the Mysore Police Act. 1963. hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of three months, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Traffic Court), Bangalore. The accused appealed to the Court of Session at Bangalore. By his judgment dated 7-7-1971, the First Additional Sessions Judge. Bangalore, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused.2. The accused was running a shop in Bangalore, wherein he was framing the photos. The charge against the accused was that there was reason to believe that M, Os. 1 to 31 valued at about Rs. 10.000/- were stolen properties and since he failed to give a satisfactory explanation for their possession, he had committed an offence under Section 98 of the Act. That section reads:98. Possession of Property of which no satisfactor...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Medappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant54; AIR1972Mys54; (1971)2MysLJ520
Chandrashekhar, J.1. Petitioners 1 to 6 were holders of a Bane land of an extent of 14.90 acres in S. No. 142 of Valnur village, Somwarpet Taluk, Coorg District. Under a registered sale deed dated 14-10-1966, they sold that land to petitioner 7 for a sum of Rs. 20,000. On 16-10-1967 the Deputy Commissioner of Coorg (respondent 2) issued a notice (Ex. B) to petitioners 1 to 6 intimating them that that land was sold without the previous permission of the Government and in contravention of the provisions of Section 45 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) and called upon them to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Section 45 of the Regulation and the Rules issued thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Ultimately the Govern-ment, by its order dated 29-8-1968 (Exhi-bit-D), accorded ex post facto sanction for the alienation of that land subject to payment of a Nazarana of 20% of the market value of tha...
Tag this Judgment!ideal Jawa (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C. Madan Mohan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1971
Reported in: [1972(24)FLR315]; (1972)ILLJ316Kant; (1971)2MysLJ472
ORDERPer E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above writ petitions filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against four orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), have given rise to common questions of law, and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.Ps. 2846 and 2847 of 1970 is the Ideal Jawa (India) P. Ltd. and the petitioner in W.Ps. 3185 and 3205 of 1970 is Bharat Electronic Limited. W.P. 2846 is filed against the order dated 26-5-1970 in S.L. No. 15 of 1969 in I.D. No. 77 of 1968 on the file of the Tribunal. The said order is passed on an application made by the workman Madan Mohan seeking permission to lead evidence on the several pleas which he had raised in his statement of objections to the application for approval filed by the management under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After holding an enquiry into the alleged misconduct ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayana Udpa Vs. Padmanabha Udpa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant81; AIR1972Mys81; (1971)2MysLJ462
M. Sadanadaswamy, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants. The suit was filed for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by Raya Udpa for himself and on behalf of his minor sons on 28-7-1918 under Ex. A-2. One Shankar Udpa had four sons, namely Venkatramana Udpa, Raya Udpa, Narayana Udpa and Subraya Udpa. Venkatramana Udpa died in about the year 1912 without leaving a widow or issues. At the time of the usufructuary mortgage, the three brothers, namely, Raya Udpa, Narayana Udpa and Subraya Udpa, constituted the members of a coparcenary since their father had also been dead. Under Ex. A-2, Raya Udpa mortgaged his undivided one third share in all the properties allotted to the branch of Shankar Udpa in favour of Narayana Udpa and Subraya Udpa. The plaintiff purchased the rights of equity of redemption from the son of the mortgagor, Raya Udpa, who is also named Shankar Udpa. under Ex. A-1 dated 30-8-1949. He, therefore brought the suit for redemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Pape Gowda Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ120
Honniah, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months, by the Special Judge, Bangalore Division. Bangalore.2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant stated briefly, are these : The appellant is an Engineering Graduate. He was appointed as a Supervisor on 10-8-1955 in the H.M.T. Bangalore. He was started on a salary of Rupees 160 plus allowance of Rupees 38.99 P. He served in that capacity till 1959 in which year he was promoted as a Foreman and his pay was raised in the scale of Rupees 400-600, On 1-5-1962. the appellant was promoted as Deputy Manager in the Civil Engineering Department in the pay scale of Rupees 700-40-1100-50-1250. After his promotion as the Deputy Manager, he was tra...
Tag this Judgment!Revamma Vs. Shanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant157; AIR1972Mys157
ORDERH.B. Datar, J. 1. Respondent has filed M. C. No. 18 of 1969 in the court of the District Judge, Bangalore under the Hindu Marriage Act. An application I. A. No. IV was filed alleging that the petitioner in this revision application is impotent and therefore a direction should be issued to the petitioner to subject herself to medical examination by the Lady Doctor of either St. Martha's Hospital. Bangalore or any other premier Hospitals in Bangalore for the purpose of ascertaining whether she is impotent and physically unfit for conjugal relationship. In support of the application affidavit has been filed ind it is alleged therein that the only material issue that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner in this revision application is impotent and unfit for conjugal relationship and whether, as alleged by the respondent in this revision application, it is physiological factor and should be found out by the medical examination and the result of such medical examination w...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Rukmini Bai and ors. Vs. Venkateswara Silk House and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant143; AIR1972Mys143; (1971)2MysLJ635
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. These six revision petitions arise out of the three applications filed by the same landlady against the different tenants for fixation of fair rent under Section 14 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The three revision petitions have been filed by the landlady challenging the correctness of the order of the lower appellate court and the other three revision petitions have been filed by the tenants challenging the order of the lower appellate court by which an order remanding the application for fresh determination has been made. As common question of law and fact are involved in those petitions, they were heard together and decided by this common judgment.2. The case of the petitioner-landlady is that the premises in question is a non-residential premises situated in an important locality in Bangalore, i.e., Chickpet, Bangalore-2, in which the respondents are the monthly tenants and it is necessary to determine the fair rent. The objections raised by the tenant...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishna Vs. the Check Post Officer, Padil Check Post, Mangalore, S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: [1972]30STC526(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is a hardware merchant carrying on his business at Puttur in South Kanara District. On 7th January, 1971, he hired a goods vehicle bearing registration No. MYX 6372 for the purpose of bringing fish manure from Gangolli in Coondapur taluk of South Kanara to Puttur. For the said purpose the petitioner despatched 4,100 empty gunny bags in the said motor vehicle from Puttur to Gangolli on 7th January, 1971. the driver of the said vehicle was M. Jayaram Shetty. The petitioner gave to the said driver a certificate, copy of which is marked as annexure A, in which the name and address of the petitioner, the particulars of the gunny bags, etc., were mentioned. It was also stated that the gunnies were sent for bringing fish manure. 2. The Check Post Officer, respondent No. 1, stopped the said vehicle at Padil near Mangalore Town and demanded the trip sheet, bill of sale or delivery note in form No. 39 as per rule 23(d) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Group Village Panchayat Committee, Harlapur Vs. Ramangouda Anantha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant58; AIR1972Mys58; (1971)2MysLJ364
Venkataswami, J. 1. The Petitioner herein is the Group Village Panchayat Committee, Harlapur, Kundgol Taluk. This Panchayat is represented by its Chairman in the present proceedings.2. A few facts may be briefly stated:The first respondent was member of the petitioner panchayat, his term having commenced from the month of March 1968. The tax for the year 1968-69 became due from him on 1-4-1968, and he did not pay the same within 15 days from that day.Therefore, the Secretary of the Panchayat Committee presented two Bills dated 18-7-1968 in respect of taxes due on the properties owned by the first respondent and the same were served on him on 10-10-1968. Those Bills were presented in accordance with Rule 76 (1) of the Mysore Panchayat and Taxes Rules, 1960, read with Section 77 (1) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. As per the Bills, he was required to pay the taxes specified therein, within a period of 15 days from the dat...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Shivanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1146
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The facts that have given rise to this revision petition are these: 25 persons (respondents herein) were accused of having committed an offence under Section 80 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Second City Magistrate Mysore. before whom they appeared, asked all the 25 accused to show cause why they should not be convicted for the offence under Section 80 of the Act for having been found gaming with playing cards by staking money a game of chance called 'Rani Salu' or 'Andhar Bahar' or 'Village Horage' in a common gaming house in a shed belonging to one Thimmamma at Siddalingapura village in Mysore Taluk on the night of 10/11-1-1969 at about 12-30 a, m. when raided by the police under a search warrant. The judgment of the Court below shows that all the accused admitted that they were gambling with playing cards by staking money in the shed of one Thimmamma of Siddalingapura village in Mysore Taluk. That plea of the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »