Karnataka Court July 1971 Judgments
Raghunath Balakrishna Deshpande Vs. Biharilal Krishnaprasad Dave
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant159; AIR1972Mys159
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision petition against the Order passed by the Munsif of Belgaum in R. O. S. No. 442/1968 wherein he recorded his findings on the preliminary issues to the effect that the suit document is a promissory note and not a money bond and that it is admissible in evidence as the said document is duly stamped as a promissory note.2. Shri. W. K. Joshi. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsiff committed an error in holding that the suit document is a promissory note and not a money bond. It is not disputed that if the document is a money bond, the same is not duly stamped. It is also not disputed that if the suit document is construed as a promissory note, it is duly stamped and admissible in evidence. The only question for consideration, therefore, is as to whether the suit document is a promissory note as contended by the plaintiff or a money bond as contended by the defendant,3. The expression 'promissory note...
Tag this Judgment!J. Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. J. Seethamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant247; AIR1972Mys247
ORDERM. Sadanandaswamy, J.1. The appellants are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants. The suit was filed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 29-6-1959 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule properties is not binding on them beyond the lifetime of the second defendant. The B Schedule properties originally belonged to the joint family of Papaiah Setty, who died in the year 1937, The geneology is as follows:- GENEOLOGY J. Papaiah Setty. | ________________________________________________________________ | | 1st wife J. Seethamma (2nd wife.D. 2) | | _________________________________ _________________________________ | | | | | |J. Veeranna Setty J. Seetharama Setty J. Krishna J. Saraswa J. Swarna Vasantha-(died on 15-11-58) (died in 1942) (D-3) Mohan. Seethamma. laxmi. | |____________________ __________________________1. J. Satyanarayana 1. J. Sakuntalamma (wife D.4).2. J. Panduranga 2. J. Nalanikantha (D.5).3....
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Kannan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ422
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. All these petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Mysore holding that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents and releasing them forthwith. Aggrieved by these decisions, the State has Preferred these revision petitions.2. As the question that is involved in all these revision petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.3. On various dates in the year 1969 one or the other Police Officers apprehended respondents at mid-night as they were found in suspicious circumstances and when the Police Officers questioned them, they were not able to give satisfactory explanation for their presence at that time in those places. They were taken into custody under Section 55 of the Criminal P. C. and a case was registered against each of the respondents both under Sections 55. and 109 of the Criminal P. C. Pending investigation, respondents were produced before the Sub-Divisional Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaraja Wadayar Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Ratnam Gopalaswamy I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant117; AIR1972Mys117; (1971)2MysLJ455
Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society and in praying for the quashing of an order made by the Mysore Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, the principal question raised is one of limitation under Rule 31 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. As the appellate Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's (Society's) claim against the respondent on the ground that the same is barred by limitation under the said rule, the Society contends that that rule to the extent it is against its claim in this case is ultra vires and invalid and should therefore be struck down.2. The respondent who was an officer or an employee of the society was sought to be proceeded against under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1092-87 being the value of the sugar found short in the society's stock during the period he was in charge of the sugar section. The period during which the respondent was in charge of the sugar section was from 25-10-1959 to 16-11-1961....
Tag this Judgment!Channabasappa Kamadal and Sons Vs. Kishan Chand and Co. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant112; AIR1972Mys112; (1971)2MysLJ449
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 202 of 1969 pending in the court of the Munsiff at Arsikere is the petitioner in this revision petition and challenges the correctness of the order passed by the Munsiff at Arsikere staying the hearing of the suit until the disposal of the suit filed before the Senior Sub Judge's Court. Delhi.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,977-47 P. as damages for breach of contract to supply and purchase the cocoanuts by the defendants. The defendants in this suit have also filed a similar suit against the plaintiff in the court of Senior Sub Judge at Delhi to recover the sum of Rupees 13.279-85. The suit filed by the defendants is on the same cause of action, namely, breach of contract and has been filed earlier. Therefore, an application I. A. No. 2 was filed in O. S. No. 202 of 1969 to stay the subsequently instituted suit. Objections were filed to that application.3. The learned trial Judge held that the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ramaiah Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1665
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The question that arises in this revision petition is whether the conductor of a stage carriage while on duty, is liable to be punished under Rule 48 (10) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules.' for non-issue of tickets to passengers travelling or intending to travel in a stage carriage when there is no evidence to show that he received the legal fare.2. The facts are these: The accused who is the Petitioner herein was the conductor of a bus bearing number MYF 6431 belonging to the M. S. R. T. C. on 24-9-1970. On that day the bus in question was travelling from Malebennur to Shimoga. The Sub-Inspector of Police attached to M. S. R. T. C. squad Survanarayana P. W. 1 and Assistant. Traffic Inspector attached to the squad P. W. 2 were going to Harihar from Shimoga in a jeep on that day and at a place called Kadadakatte, these two officers examined the bus in question and found that the accused was the conductor and also f...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Nanjundaswami Vs. the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant6; AIR1972Mys6; (1971)2MysLJ315
Venkataramiah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of an Order passed by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).2. The few facts leading to this writ petition are these: The petitioner is a person who is engaged in the business of running stage carriage services between Kollegal and Nanjangud and on some other routes in the District of Mysore. The Regional Transport Authority, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the H. T. A.), published a notification calling for representations from interested persons with regard to the fixation of the number of services on the various routes in Mysore District u/s. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was one of the persons who made representations to the R. T. A. stating that there was no need to grant permits for additional stage carriage services on some of the routes. By i...
Tag this Judgment!Appasaheb Annappa Siruguppi Vs. the Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant33; AIR1972Mys33; (1971)2MysLJ219
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioner Appasaheb Siruguppi was appointed several years ago Secretary of the Town Municipal Council of Ramdurg. He was once dismissed from service by the Municipality, but the resolution was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner which suspension was confirmed by the State Government, with the result that he continued in service or got restored to service. Shortly after such restoration-he was served with an order of suspension dated the 27th of February 1969 reading:--'In pursuance of General Board Resolution No. 147 dated 27-2-1969. Sri A. A. Siruguppi Secretary Town Municipal Council Ramdurg, is hereby suspended until enquiry by the Sub Committee and final decision by the Municipality.'2. The petitioner impugns this order as one made without jurisdiction or any legal authority.3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Mysore Municipal Administrative Service contemplated under Section 365 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964, was constituted and a ...
Tag this Judgment!Group Village Panchayat of Neralakere Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant36; AIR1972Mys36; (1971)2MysLJ359
Venkataswami, J. 1. The Petitioner is Group Village Panchayat constituted under the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act. 1959. hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The said panchayat has sought for quashing of a notification issued by the Divisional Commissioner. Bangalore Division. Bangalore in LND (C) SR 19/68/69 dated 13-4-1968. By the said Notification, a communal land (gomal) S. No. 26 within the limits of the jurisdiction of the petitioner panchayat was sought to be resumed for the purpose of disposal of the same for cultivation purposes. 2. By the Notification issued in the purported exercise of power conferred by Sections 46 (1) and 49 (1) of the Act, by the Government of Mysore, the said land along with certain other items specified therein was vested in the petitioner panchayat. The relevant Notification is No. DRL 30 VAD 61. dated 27-12-1961-The portion relevant in the said notification reads thus:-- '.... 1. Open sites in the Gaothana area; The alienation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulsab Rajasab Guledgud and ors. Vs. Mohiboobsaheb Patel and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant60; AIR1972Mys60; (1971)2MysLJ518
Venkataswami, J. 1. The petitioners have sought for the issue of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the Sub-Committee of the Mysore State Board of Wakfs at Bangalore, made in L. C. C. No. 18 of 1967 on 21-3-1970.2. A few relevant facts may be stated. There is a mosque in Pandharigalli in Bagalkot Town, variously styled as 'Pandhari Masjid, Pankha Masjid and Mecca Masjid'. According to the petitioners, this mosque was built by a sub-sect of muslims known as 'Pandharis' most of whom were residents of Pandharigalli of Bagalkot. It would appear that there were 7 mosques in the town similarly constructed by the Muslims of the localities concerned and used by them separately and exclusively. Since the original Trustees were all dead or had migrated, some of the petitioners herein moved the District Judge Bijapur in Misc. Applications Nos. 36 of 1952 and 37 of 1958. Although the first of the above said applications was dismissed, on the other application, the District Court directed h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »