Karnataka Court August 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.M. Zackriah Vs. Elect, Hair Dressers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant244; AIR1972Mys244
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The petitioner-landlord filed H. R. C. No. 310 of 1967 in the court of the Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, seeking an order of eviction against the respondent-tenant for the reason mentioned in the application. In the preamble of the petition it was stated that it was the petition under Section 21 Sub-Clauses (i) and (j) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act. The only averment in the entire portion consists of the following few sentences which read as under:'2. The premises in question in occupation of the respondent is a fairly old one and the petitioner has finalised his plans for reconstruction of the premises which reconstruction cannot be done unless and until the respondent vacates the premises. The respondent has not chosen to do so in spite of repeated demands'. This is all that has been stated in the entire application. In the objection statement, it was submitted by the tenant that the landlord has not significantly given any details ...
In Re: Basi Reddy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1141
C. Honniah, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge. Bellary. in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1969, convicting appellants 1, 2 and 4 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-with a default sentence, convicting appellants 1 and 2 under Section 489-C read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and further convicting appellant 3 under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, The learned Sessions Judge acquitted appellant 4 of the charge under Section 489-C read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this decision, A-2 and A-3 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1970. A-l has filed Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1970 and A-4 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 200 of ...
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. A.C. Nanjundapp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant47; AIR1972Mys47; (1971)2MysLJ440
Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner in all these Writ Petitions is the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). These writ petitions are directed against several orders of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), allowing the appeals filed by Respondent-1 in each of these Writ Petitions against the orders of the Mysore State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as M. S. T. A.) renewing the permits to ply the stage carriages concerned, under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for a period of 3 years only, even though the first respondent in each of these petitions had applied for renewal of such permits for a period of 5 years.2. The ground on which the Corporation has filed these Writ Petitions is that no appeal was maintainable against the orders of M. S. T. A. renewing a permit, even though the period specified in each case was 3 years as against the period of 5 years prayed for by re...
Mysore Cements Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant149; AIR1972Mys149; (1972)1MysLJ41
Venkataswami, J. 1. The petitioners herein are a public limited company and the Secretary of that Company. The company i. e., Mysore Cements Ltd., is aggrieved by an Order of rejection made by the Central Government and communicated by its letter No. MV-1 (172)/69, dated 5-1-1970 on a revision application preferred by the first petitioner under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960.2. It is necessary to set out a few facts in order to appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. The first petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cement and has its factory at a place called Ammasandra in the District of Tumkur. For that purpose it is in need of sand as a raw material. From its inception it had the benefit of permits issued off-and-on in regard to sand, from the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the area. The sand, it is not disputed, at the relevant point of time was classified as a major mineral governed by the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. ...
State of Mysore Vs. B. Basavalingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant355; AIR1971Mys355; (1971)2MysLJ237
Chandrashekhar, J. This reference is purported to have been made under Section 113. C. P. C. by the Second Additional First Munsiff. Bangalore, before whom the Suit, O. S. No. 357 of 1968, was pending.2. The learned Munsiff has stated a case, formulated the question referred for the opinion of this Court, and has also set out his opinion on that question. That question reads:'Whether rules 5 (1) and 5 (2) of the Mysore Residences of the Deputy Ministers (Furnishing) Rules, 1956, are invalid and inoperative.' The Mysore Residences of Deputy Ministers (Furnishing) Rules, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were made by the Government of Mysore in exercise of the rule-making power under Section 15 of the Mysore Ministers Salaries and Allowances Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)3. In the course of his reference, the learned Munsiff has observed that the suit involves a question as to the validity of Sub-rule (1) of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 which in his op...
Kempegowda Vs. M. Mahalingaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant152; AIR1972Mys152; (1972)1MysLJ57
Ahmed Ali Khan, J. 1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1519 of 1963 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Mandy. The plaintiff's suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1334-00 inclusive of interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1,000/-at the rate of 12 per cent and notice charges a sum of Rs. 10/-.2. The allegations contained in the plaint were that on 3-2-1960, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the sum and as security for the said amount, executed a pronote which has been marked as Ex. P-1 in the case and a receipt along with it on the same day. It was stated that the defendant thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 120/- towards interest on 5-4-1961 and made an endorsement to that effect on the pro-note Ex. P-1. It was further alleged that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that the pronote Ex. P-1 and the consideration receipt were required for the pur...
A. Munivenkataiah and ors. Vs. General Manager, Government Soap Factor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: (1972)ILLJ355Kant; (1972)1MysLJ8
ORDERPer E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This writ petition is filed by some of the workman of Government Soap Factory, Bangalore, for quashing the order dated 10-12-1969 passed on Appln. 117 of 1969 by the Presiding officer Labour Court, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner filed an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court against the General Manager, Government Soap Factory, Bangalore, for recovery of ascertain sum of money which they were entitled to by way of profit bonus due to them under a memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties on 30-3-1964. The relevant part of the settlement is extracted below. '7. Profit Bonus : It is agreed that the concern will pay profit bonus for the year on the annual financial results of the concern as set forth below - (a) For profits No bonus. below 5% (b) For profits of 5% 1/12th of the total earnings for the year and above but not on account of basic pay/wages exclusive of exceeding 8% allowance of any k...
Lakshmi Baga Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Iii(i) Circ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MysLJ335; [1971]28STC552(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is a firm which is assessed to tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. For the period 1st July, 1963, to 30th June, 1964, an assessment order was made on the petitioner under section 12-A of the Act, by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore City Division, on 25th March, 1966. The tax assessed on the escaped turnover was determined as Rs. 2,510.36 based on the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner having failed to pay the said amount of tax demanded, an application was filed before the City Magistrate, Bangalore (respondent 2) under section 13(3)(b) of the Act in C. Mis. 254 of 1966. The second respondent issued a warrant of attachment of the properties of the petitioner for recovery of the aforesaid tax amount. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. During the pendency of the above writ petition section 12-A of the Ac...
Tarabai Vs. Krishna Panduranga Powar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant214; AIR1972Mys214
1. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench for disposal by the order dated 16-10-1969 made by Narayana Pai, J.. as he then was.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff In O. S. No. 171 of 1963 on the file of the court of the Munsiff at Jamkhandi and the respondent is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff sued for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff's case is that she was in lawful possession of the suit lands on the date of the suit and that the defendant is unlawfully interfering with her possession. Therefore, she prayed for a permanent injunction. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands and further contending that he is the protected tenant of the suit lands under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948. On the basis of the said pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed Issue No. 2 raising the question of...
The State of Mysore Vs. Shankarappa Satteppa Indi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1812
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur recommending to quash the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindgi, in C. C, No. 560 of 1970 by which the Magistrate rescinded his earlier order issuing summons to the accused persons.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are these:One Shankarappa Satteppa Indi filed a private complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindgi against Shivaraya, Gangabai and Rudraswamy alleging that Shivaraya and Gangabai celebrated the marriage of their daughter Shivarudrawa aged 4 years with one Ayyappa, aged about 17 years and thereby committed offence punishable Under Sections 5 and 6 of the ' Child Marriage Restraint Act. 1929, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of Shankara Settappa Indi as provided Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure and di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›