Karnataka Court October 1972 Judgments
John A. Saldanha and ors. Vs. the City Municipal Council, Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant186; AIR1973Mys186; (1973)1MysLJ86
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. In this petition under Article 226. John Saldhana the petitioner, challenges the resolution of the Manealore Municipality ('Municipality') declaring a portion of his residential property as non-residential,2. His property bearing T. S. No. 233/3 is situate at Kodialbail. Mangalore, This entire area alone with many other surrounding premises, was originally notified as a residential locality by a notification dated 30-6-1943 issued under Section 89(1) of the Madras Public Health Act (Act III of 19391 ('the Act').3. On 27-11-1963 the Municipality by its resolution resolved that out of the said premises. 1 acre 93 cents should be excluded from the residential area and be notified as non-residential. Thereafter, after observing certain formalities, a final resolution was passed on 21-2-1967 affirming the earlier decision; and the same was notified on 28-2-1967 under Section 89 of the Act The notification was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 23-3-11567. The deci...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmath Saheb Vs. Zainabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ879
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. This petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. ('Code') is by the husband challenging the order for maintenance made under Section 488 of the Code, whereby an allowance of Rs. 30/- per mensem has been directed to be paid to the wife from the date of the petition.2. The facts need not be set out at length in view of the Questions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate found that the respondent had been in fact deserted by her husband within the meaning of the provisions of Section 488 of the Code and the husband's offer to maintain her was not bona fide. He further found that the wife's refusal to reside with her husband was justified.3. On behalf of the petitioner. Sri M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, the learned Advocate urged the 'following as his principal contentions:1. That the Court at Mangalore had no jurisdiction to try the case.2. That on the facts of the case, the case fell within the prohibition enacted in Sub-section (4) of Section 488 of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Belgaum Division ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1574
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, for enhancement of sentence passed on the respondent-accused (who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused). The accused was convicted of an offence under Section 135 (B) (ii) of the Customs Act; he was also convicted for contravening Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963. The trial Court sentenced him to suffer 6 months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer each of the two offences. The substantive sentences were directed to run doncurrently. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum, who confirmed the conviction of the accused for both the offences; but the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence from 6 months' R. I. to one month's R. I, for each of the offences. He retained the fine of Rs. 500/-. This order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reducing the se...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswamappa Vs. Ramiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant161; AIR1973Mys161; (1973)1MysLJ65
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The short question that arises in this revision petition is as to whether the application filed before the Court below for a direction to make a reference was within the period of limitation. It arises in this way:The land Survey number 16/6 of Byyappanahalli was acquired and an award passed on the 5th of February 1964 end this was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on the 24th of July 1964. It is not disputed that one Ramaiah who was the petitioner before the Court below was one of the persons interested in the award. He did not file an application until the year 1970, and therefore, the petitioner in this revision petition has contended that the application filed for making a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) was barred by limitation. The learned trial Judge overruling that objection has issued a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference.2. In this revision petition it is strenuousl...
Tag this Judgment!K. RafudIn Ahmed Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ891
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. This petition is by a surety, who has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- on forfeiture of the bond executed by him, for a sum of Rupees 1000/-. It would appear that the accused owing to indisposition had endeavoured to secure adjournments in the case at various stages. Ultimately when a non-bailable warrant was issued on 25.3.1971 the accused approached this Court and secured an order for recalling the said warrant. Meanwhile proceedings were instituted against the petitioner for the enforcement of the bond executed by him as a surety. A notice was caused to be served on the petitioner and on 17.8.1971 the surety bond was forfeited on account of the absence of the petitioner. Further proceedings by way of attachment of movable properties were taken for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1000/- which was the entire sum mentioned in the bond. On 24.9.1971 the petitioner appeared in court and filed an application through a counsel practically requesting that...
Tag this Judgment!H. Basavaiah and anr. Vs. H.G. Krishnappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1318
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. These two petitions are directed against two orders made by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 11' and 8 of 1972. The said petitions had been preferred by Krishnappa and his brother Subbaiah against the dismissal of their complaints in C.C. No. 2041/1971 and C. R. No. 6/72 made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Second Court) Bangalore.2. The petitioners herein are Police Officers. The complaint of the respondent is that they have committed offences under Sections 345. 323, 355, 384 and 324 I.P.C In C.C. No. 2041/1971 the accused appeared in response to summons issued, after the case was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate, In the other case. Crime No- 6/1972 the accused appeared even before such summons were issued. In both cases, a contention was taken that the complaints were vitiated on account of want of sanction in accordance with Section 170 of the Mysore Police Act. The learned Magistrate came to the concl...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dasarathy Vs. Mysore Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ502Kant; (1973)1MysLJ81
ORDERPer Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioners are employed as Junior Engineers in the Mysore State Electricity Board, which is the respondent in the above writ petitions. 2. On three references made by the State Government under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, to the Additional Industrial Tribunal in Mysore at Bangalore an award was passed by the said Tribunal on 17-10-1967. The said award was published by the order of the Government in the Mysore Gazette dated 26-10-1967. 3. The respondent in order to give affect to the award confirmed the petitioners in the post of Junior Engineers with effect from 26-5-1968. The petitioner in W.P. 2225/1969 whom we shall refer to as the first petitioner and the petitioner in W.P. 4100/1969 whom we shall refer to as the second petitioner, have in these writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, sought a direction to the respondent to make an order to the effect that the petitioners have become perma...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakka Vs. K. Muniappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant205; AIR1973Mys205; (1973)1MysLJ164
B. Venkataswami, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal directed against judgment and decree made by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore which reversed the Judgment and decree made by the Additional Second Munsiff, Bangalore.2. The suit is one for a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell several items of immoveable properties alleged to have been entered into by the appellant-first defendant with the first respondent-plaintiff, on 24-4-1957. The consideration stipulated is stated to be Rs. 8.000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 6,000/- is alleged to have been paid on the date of agreement of sale, the balance of Rs. 2,000/-having been agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the deed. It would appear that at or about the time this agreement was entered into there was a litigation going on between the appellant herein and one Channappa and her father-in-law. The suit In question was in respect of the title and possession of the present suit schedule properties and it was O,...
Tag this Judgment!Shiddappa Vs. Chennabasappa Giriyappa Badappanwar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant245; AIR1973Mys245; (1973)1MysLJ162
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 408 of 1965, made by the learned Civil Judge at Hubli. The learned Civil Judge confirmed the judgment of dismissal of suit made by the Munsiff and J M F. C., Ranebennur. in L. C. Suit No. 8 of 1963.2. The material facts, briefly, are as follows The suit of the appellant was for the relief of partition and separate possession of his share in joint family properties specified in the plaint schedule. It has been claimed on his, behalf that he is the adopted son of Basappa. who was the brother of the first respondent-first defendant, and that there is a deed evidencing such adoption executed and duly registered on 25-6-1938. On behalf of the respondents, the defence is that the adoption is untrue and the deed of adoption is a false and got up document. It is unnecessary to refer to the other pleas and findings relative thereto as the same have not been challenged before me.3. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambanna Hanumappa Naik Vs. Sharnappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant261; AIR1973Mys261
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. This is an application by the Election Petitioner seeking for an amendment of the petition, filed pursuant to Sub-section (5) of Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R. P. Act). The amendments sought almost wholly relate to facts and particulars pertaining to corrupt practices alleged against the first respondent.2. It is necessary to set out some facts relating to the institution of the petition and the subsequent stages of the proceedings upto the date of the presentation of the application I. A. II, as the same would be relevant for the determination of the questions of delay and want of bona fides concerned with an application for amendment.3. The Election Petition in question has been presented on 25-4-1972, when the Court was in recess on account of the long vacation. But it is to be noted that the Notification issued by the Chief Justice had specifically made provision for receiving Election Petitions, among other matters. The date...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »