Karnataka Court February 1972 Judgments
Venkata Rao and ors. Vs. Brijpal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant339; AIR1972Mys339
Datar, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal are the legal representatives of the first defendant. The plaintiffs filed O. S. 91/1 of 1963 in the Court of the Munsiff at Aland claiming declaration of ownership relating to the property as also claiming amount in deposit and forpossession. The case of the plaintiffs was that they are the owners of the suit property. It was their further case that defendant 1 surrendered his tenancy right long back but was attempting to interfere with the possession held by the plaintiffs. It was further elated that having regard to the illegal interference of the plaintiff's possession, the proceedings were initiated before the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Aland, and it was wrongly decided that defendant 1 was in possession of the lands in question and the lands were accordingly ordered to be released to him on the 27th August. 1957. The suit was therefore instituted for a declaration, for recovery of amount and also for mesne profits. 2. Defendant I f...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Rikabdas Tejmal Sha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant329; AIR1972Mys329; 1973LC1(Karnataka); (1972)1MysLJ520
Santhosh, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by special leave by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Belgaum Division, against the acquittal of the respondent of the charges punishable under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act 1968, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chikodi in C. C. No. 90 of 1970. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: P. W. 2 Frederik, Superintendent Central Excise issued a search warrant on 20-12-1968 (Ex. PI), to search the business and residential premises of the accused. P. W. 1, Sirdeshpande, another Superintendent of Central Excise proceeded to the place with the warrant and searched the premises in the presence of panchas. The accused was present at that time. No incriminatory article was found in the business premises and the ground floor of the residential premises. Then P. W. 1 searched the first floor. In the front room of the first floor there were cupboards. P. W. ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Lakshminarayana Setty Vs. R. Rajmall and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant342; AIR1972Mys342; (1972)1MysLJ652
Nesargi, J. 1. The 1st Judgment-debtor B. Lakshminarayana Setty, in Execution Case No. 56 of 1970. on the file of the Civil Judge. Civil Station. Bangalore, has filed this appeal against the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge on 18-11-1970, directing execution to proceed. The 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, passed decree in O. S. No. 494 of 1964. on 4-2-1966. This decree is sought to be executed in Execution Case No. 56 of 1970. Execution Case No. 56 of 1970 was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore on 14-4-1970. 2. The appellant-judgment debtor contended that the Execution is incompetent inasmuch as it could not have been initiated in the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station. Bangalore, without securing a certificate of transfer from the Court which passed the decree. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Gopalkrishna v. Gavisandraya Laxman, (AIR 1964 Mys 34). The learned Civil Judge rejected this contention and directed execu...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govinda Prabha Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1661
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5-8-1971 passed by the Sessions Judge South Kanara Mangalore. in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1971 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 520 of the Cr. P.C. against the order passed by the Additional Munsiff cum Magistrate Buntwal on 6-2-1971 in C. C. No. 1039 of 1970.2. At about 3.00 A. M. on 25-1-1969 the police attached to Food Mobile Squad seized a lorry bearing registration No. MYX 5403 and found that it was transporting 75 quintals of boiled rice in 100 gunny bags. They seized the said lorry on suspicion, that provisions of Mysore Fooderains (Regulation of Transport of Foodsrains) Order, 1966. had been contravened. They registered a case in Crime No. 33 of 1969 for offences under the provision of the said order and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The fooderains were produced before the Deputy Commissioner. South Kanara. under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodi...
Tag this Judgment!C. Rudre Gowda Vs. Angadi Chikkanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant199; AIR1972Mys199
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit, Original Suit No. 62 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff, Chikkaballapur. The said suit was instituted for recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. In the course of the written statement the defendant contended that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, and, therefore, he was entitled to the reliefs thereunder. In view of the above contention, the Munsiff framed issue No. 1. By the time the said issue was taken up for hearing it was held by this Court in E.V. Rangaswamy v. Shah Krishnaji Valaji & Co., (1971) 1 Mys LJ 350 that the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, was no longer in force, and, therefore, the Munsiff ordered that no relief could be granted to the defendant under that Act. He also ordered deletion of issue No. 1 in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed this petition. 2. When ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Kalanji Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: (1972)1MysLJ382; [1972]29STC724(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. This is a revision petition by an assessee under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The assessee carries on the business of a restaurant called 'Vinayaka Restaurant' at Haveri, and therefore, he is a dealer under the Act. For the assessment year 1966-67, he declared a taxable turnover of Rs. 15,028. In support of that return, he produced books of account before the assessing authority. After scrutiny, the assessing authority rejected the accounts and made an order of assessment on best of judgment basis and in determining the taxable turnover of the assessee, he applied the usual formula of computing the turnover by multiplying the working expenses of a hotel by five. In other words, the assessing authority computed the total working expenses of the assessee for the relevant year as Rs. 5,377, which he multiplied by 5 and thus arrived at Rs. 26,855 as the taxable turnover. On the said basis an assessment was made on ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivadeviamma and ors. Vs. Sumanaji and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant87; AIR1973Mys87; (1973)1MysLJ321
Govinda Bhat, J.1. Under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') a Bench consisting of Honniah and Venkataramiah, JJ., by order dated November 3. 1970. referred to a Full Bench the following questions of law:--(1) Does Section 14 (11 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply to the case of life interest acquired before or after the commencement of the said Act, under Sections 35 and 36 of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act. 1949 (Madras Act No. IX of 1949). by a female who has completed fifty years of age (a Nissanthathi Kavaru) and possessed by her and does such female hold such property absolutely and not as a holder of a life interest?(2) Are provisions of Section 36 (3). (4) and (5) of Madras Aliyasanthana Act 1949 (Madras Act IX of 1949), inconsistent with Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956. in so far as they relate to females governed by Aliyasanthana Law and do those provisions cease to apply to such females even though they may have com...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Somala and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1478
Range Gowda, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the order dated 25-6-1970 passed by the First Class Magistrate. Aurad. in Case No. 23/3 of 1970 acquitting under Sub-section (11) of Section 251-A. Criminal P.C. the respondents of the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,2. The facts leading to this proceeding may briefly be stated as follows: The respondents-accused were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police. Kamalapur Police Station in Aurad Taluk for an offence under Section 379 r/w Section 34. Indian P.C. on the allegation that on the night between 8-1-1970 and 9-1-1970 at Debka they in furtherance of their common intention, committed the theft of four bullocks worth Rs. 3,000/- belonging to the complainant Prabhu. The charge-sheet was filed on 24-3-1970 and a charge under Section 379. Indian P.C. was framed against only respondent-1 on 8-4-1970 as the other respondent was absconding. On 6-5-1970 the second respondent was produced...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalabai Narayan Naik Vs. Rukmanibai Krishnaji Naik and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant282; AIR1972Mys282; (1972)1MysLJ586
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. Opponent No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1963 on the file of the Munsiff. Chikodi, is the appellant in this second appeal. The above appeal arises out of application filed by Rukmini Bai (Respondent 1 in this appeal) for restoration of possession of a house situated at Nippani.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: One Narayana who was the husband of Opponent No. 1 (appellant herein) instituted a suit in Suit No. 138 of 1947 on the file of the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Chikodi, for recovery of possession of the house referred to above against a tenant. The said suit was decreed and he filed Darkhast application No. 177 of 1949 to recover possession of the property from the tenant. During the pendency of the said Execution application, applicant Rukmini Bai instituted Reg. Suit No. 189 of 1951 on the file of the same court for an injunction restraining Narayan from enforcing the decree passed in Suit No. 138/47 on the ground that she was the owner of the house and...
Tag this Judgment!Aswathappa and ors. Vs. Ramchandrappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1654
M. Santhosh, J.1. The seventeen petitioners before this Court have been committed to the court of Session at Kolar to take their trial by the learned Special first Class Magistrate. Chickballapur in C. C. No. 852 of 1970.2. On a complaint filed by one Ramachandrappa against these petitioners alleging that they had committed offences under Sections 143. 147. 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and examined six witnesses on behalf of the complainant. Then he recorded the statements of the petitioners-accused and heard arguments, and framed charges against them under Sections, 143. 147. 148 and 324 read with 149 of the I. P.C. Thereafter on the ground that there is a counter-case filed against the complainant's party the learned Magistrate committed the petitioners to the Sessions Court for trial so that the case may be tried along with the counter-case that was pending against the complainant's Party relying on a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »