Karnataka Court June 1972 Judgments
Bhimappa Ningappa Hiresomannawar Vs. Shrimant Parashuram Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant52; AIR1973Mys52; (1972)2MysLJ108
Nesargi, J. 1. Jagannatha Shetty, J being of the opinion that the decision in C. R. P. No. 557 of 1971 (Thattesara Subbaraya v. Chinne Gowda) and the connected petition, required to be reconsidered, has referred this revision petition to a Bench under Section 8 of the Mysore High Court Act. The said decision is by now reported in 1972 (1) Mysore Law Journal 322 = (AIR 1972 Mys 213).2. The petitioner is tenant of lands R. Survey Nos. 105. 11, 112, 113. 157 and 153 of Hulyal village, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District, under the respondents-landlords. The respondents filed an application under Section 42 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act. 1961. (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act'), before the Land Tribunal. Jamkhandi, on 28-6-1968 against the petitioner for recovery of balance of rent due for the year 1966-67.3. They computed the rental under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act and claimed a balance of Rs. 4.804.00 after giving deduction of a sum of Rs. 680/-already paid by the petitioner.4....
Tag this Judgment!Subbakke and ors. Vs. Appayya Rai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant230; AIR1973Mys230; (1973)1MysLJ71
Venkataramiah, J. 1. Defendants 3 to 14 in original suit No. 106 of 1951 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, are the appellants in this appeal. In the said suit a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 30-11-1953. Under the said decree parties who were in possession of properties were directed to pay mesne profits to parties who were not in possession of properties in excess of their share In the family properties less than the shares they were entitled to. The record before us discloses among other thing, that defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of properties in excess of their legitimate share. Defendant 2 died on 1-10-1957. Defendants 34, 50, 40 who were the children and the widow of defendant 2, were brought on record as legal representatives of 2nd defendant on an application filed by them. But later on defendants 3 to 14 who are appellants in this appeal filed an application before the Court below stating that they were entitled to the estate which had fallen to ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nanjappa and anr. Vs. Siddiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant28; AIR1973Mys28; (1973)1MysLJ186
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 357 of 1957 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. They instituted the above suit for redemption of five mortgages executed by their father Naniaiah in favour of Konda Hanumanthaiah the deceased father of defendants 1 and 2, on 10-1-1918, 26-9-1918, 8-7-1919, 20-2-1922 and 2-12-1922. Earlier Item 1 of the plaint schedule had been mortgaged on 29-5-1916 in favour of one Hanuman Singh for a sum of Rs. 100/- and that in the mortgage deed dated 20-2-1922, Konda Hanumanthaiah was asked to discharge the said mortgage and to Set possession of the property. Konda Hanumanthaiah discharged the said mortgage and got possession of Item 1 of the plaint schedule. Under the deed dated 10-1-1918. Item 2 of the suit schedule was mortgaged; under the deed dated 26-9-1918. Item 3 and a portion of survey No. 10 was mortgaged; under the deed dated 8-8-1919, a second mortgage was created on Item 2 of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane (P) Limited Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC104(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. These are three revision petitions preferred by a common assessee under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. The common question raised in these petitions is, whether the amount paid by the assessee to growers of sugarcane as harvesting and transportation charges forms part of the purchase turnover liable to tax under the Act. 2. The assessee manufactures sugar in its factory, and for consumption in its factory purchase sugarcane from cane growers. The minimum purchase price of sugarcane has been fixed by the Central Government by its order dated 21st April, 1961, issued under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1956. The assessee entered into agreements with sugarcane growers for purchase of sugarcane at the minimum price fixed by the order of the Central Government. Under the said agreements, the growers were to deliver their sugarcane, f.o.r. the factory premises. As an inducement to the growers to supply more sugarcane, the as...
Tag this Judgment!Shidramappa Ayyappagouda Patil Vs. Parasuramasing Karaksing Rajput and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant82; AIR1973Mys82
V.S. Malimath, J. 1. This appeal is by one Shidramappa Ayyappagouda Patil against the decree passed by the Civil Judge at Bijapur in R. A. No. 151 of 1966 confirming the decree passed by the Munsiff at Muddebihal in Darkhast No. 110 of 1961. One Parasuramasing Karaksing Raiput, respondent No. 1 herein instituted a Civil Suit No. 166 of 1954 to recover a certain sum of money from respondent No. 2 Chanbasappa Subbappa Patil. That suit was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division. Bijapur. Respondent No. 1 obtained an order of attachment before judgment in respect of the property in question from the Civil Judge Junior Division. Bijapur on the 9th of August, 1954. As the property belonging to respondent No. 2 was situate within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division. Muddebihal. appropriate steps had to be taken for effecting the attachment ordered by the Civil Judge Junior Division. Bijapur by his order dated the 9th of August 1954 as per the p...
Tag this Judgment!Azeezulla Sheriff and ors. Vs. Bhabhutimul
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant276; AIR1973Mys276; (1972)2MysLJ408
V.S. Malimath, J.1. These two appeals are by plaintiffs 1 to 3 against the decrees passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeals Nos. 150 and 160 of 1967, affirming the decree passed by the 1st Additional 1st Munsiff, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 1373 of 1962. 2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit on the 26th of October, 1962, for declaration that the sale deed dated 17th September, 1962, executed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of the defendant purporting to sell their share in the suit schedule properties is null and void and for an order directing the defendant to deliver the said document to plaintiffs 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have a share in the suit schedule properties, which they agreed to sell to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/-. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed a sale deed on the 17th of September 1962 in favour of the defendant which has been produced in the case as Exhibit P-l. Though the defendant got the s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Sita Bhateja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR193(KAR); [1973]91ITR193(Karn); (1973)1MysLJ179
Venlataramiah, J.1. The question of law referred by the Income-tax Apellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court in the above case reads as follows : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, as a member of the Hindu undivided family, was entitled to throw her separate property into the common hotchpots of the Hindu undivided family?' 2. The facts of the case are briefly these : The assessee is governed by Mithakshara law. She jointly City, on 13th February, 1963. A house was constructed on the said site and both the assessee and her husband contributed towards the cost of construction. In the year of acount, the house was let out and a sum of Rs. 7,365 was raised as rent. The assessee and her husband, in an affidavit dated February 27, 1964, made a declaration that the property was treated had held by them with effect form 1st April, 1963, as the property belonging to the HIndu undivided family ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Shankar Waman Saunshi and ors. Vs. Giridhar Ranganath Kulkarni ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant348; AIR1972Mys348
V.S. Malimath, J.1. This appeal is by the decree-holders against the decree passed by the Civil Judge at Hubli in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1965 reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff at Hubli in L. D. No. 224 of 1962. The appellants obtained a money decree against the father of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 9,317/- from the Court of the Munsiff at Dharwar.. The decree-holders prayed for transfer of the decree to the. Court of the. Munsiff, Hubli for purposes of execution. At the instance of the decree-holders, the properties bearing C. T. S. Nos. 1492/A. 1492/B and 1492/C were attached. When the decree-holders sought to bring those properties to sale, the respondents objected to the same on the ground that the properties cannot be sold in view of the bar contained in Section 4 (2) of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950. That objection of the respondents was ruled out by the executing Court by its order dated the 17th of April. 1965. That decision was cha...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. MohaddIn Vs. L.D. Narvekar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant55; AIR1973Mys55; (1972)2MysLJ391
Venkataramiah, J.1. This Appeal is filed against the decree passed in Special Suit No. 19 of 1963 on the file of the Civil Judge. Hubli. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of the value of a motor vehicle bearing No. MYF 4555 and for damages for wrongful detention of the same. The suit was instituted against two defendants by name L.D. Narvekar and D.K. Narvekar, D.K. Narvekar is the nephew of L.D. Narvekar. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint was that he has entered into an agreement with the defendants to transport logs of wood belonging to the defendants, from an area called Mundgod forest area to Mundgod forest depot and sleepers from Mundgod depot to Hubli Railway Station. In that connection, a written agreement was entered into on 9-4-1960 (Ex. 143). After the agreement was entered into, the plaintiff found that the representation of the defendants with regard to the place where the logs had been stacked and the condition of the roads which he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. C.N. Nanjappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1972
Reported in: ILR1984KAR97
ORDERChandrasekhar, J.1. The workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, represented by the sectionretary, HMT Employees' Association (herein-after referred to as the Employees' Association), have presented this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Employees' Association and respondent-4, H M T Karmika Sangha (hereinafter referred to as the Karmika Sangha), are two rival unions of workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools (herein-after referred to as the Factory), the Genera) Manager of which has been impleaded as respondent-5.2. On 7-1-1970, a settlement was reached between the management and respondent-5 (hereinafter referred to as theManagement), and the Karmika Sangha which purported to represent the workmen of the Factory. The settlement was regardingrevision of the wage structure, for the workmen. In this petition, the Employees' Association has impugned this settlement and has prayed for the following reliefs, inter alia:(a) issue of a writ of certiorari quashin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »