Karnataka Court July 1972 Judgments
Bharamarambika @ Ambakka Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ114
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition -1 filed under Section 526(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of C.C No. 2330 of 1971 from the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Davangere, to the file of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Chitradurga.2. The petitioner Is complainant in C.C. No. 2330 of 1971 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate. Davangere. She filed the complaint on 6.7.1971 alleging that respondent-2 the husband of the petitioner, had. during the subsistence of their marriage, married one Jayamma, respondent No. 3 and that that marriage had been abetted by the remaining respondents 4 to 6. The Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 6.7.1971 and then recorded sworn statements of two witnesses on 2.8.1971 and thereafter directed issue of processes. Respondents 2 to 6 who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 before him appeared on 22.9.1971 and were enlarged on bail. The matter was posted for recording of evidence on 13.10.1971. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bikabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Company Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer ( ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1972
Reported in: [1972]30STC425(Kar)
ORDERMalimath, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the assessment order made by the Commercial Tax Officer (Additional Circle) South Kanara, Mangalore, dated 26th June, 1967, in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. 2. The petitioner was a registered dealer both under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year 1957-58 the petitioner has submitted his return. The Commercial Tax Officer was of the opinion that the return submitted is not correct and, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner for taking action under section 12(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The petitioner filed his objections to the said notice on 20th May, 1959. The Commercial Tax Officer thereafter made a final order against the petitioner under section 12(3) of the Act. That order as challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 439 of 1959 before this court. This court by an order dated 12th December, 1960, set aside the order made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant32; AIR1973Mys32; (1972)2MysLJ265
Malimath, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the notification dated 17th August, 1967 issued by the 2nd respondent, the Executive Engineer-cum-Irrigation Officer, V. C. Division. Mandya, under Section 15 (1) of the Irrigation Act, 1965, as well as the notification dated 8th December. 1967 Issued by the same officer under Section 15 (2) of the said Act.2. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 62/3 and 62/5 of Halavadi village in Mandya Taluk. They together measure 1 acre and 3 guntas. On the 17th of August, 1967 the Irrigation Officer, issued the notification under Section 15 (1) of the Mysore Irrigation Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as (the Act) which has been produced in the case as Exhibit A. That was followed by the notification dated 8th December, 1967, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 15 (2) of the Act, which has been produced in the case as Ex. B.3. The contention of the petitioner is, that the notification issued u...
Tag this Judgment!The Commandant, Sub-area, Bangalore and anr. Vs. Smt. Kantamma and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant48; AIR1973Mys48; (1973)1MysLJ193
Bhimiah, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is from the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (to be hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Misc. No. 90 of 1967, awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,700/- to one Kanthamma. widow of late Veeraraghavaiah. who died in an automobile accident The appellants before this Court are the Commandant, Sub-Area. Cubbon Road, Bangalore, and the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Defence Department. New Delhi.2. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act before the Tribunal against the present appellants and their driver claiming compensation in respect of an accident, caused by a military truck bearing No. 10700 near B. R. V. Talkies involving the death of her husband. Veera-raghavaiah. on 4-10-1965 at 11-30 a.m.3. The respondent's case is briefly thus: The military truck bearing No 10700 belonged to the A.S.C...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Neelakant Kulakarni and ors. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ551
C. Honniah, J.1. Ganesh Neelakantha Kulakarni (A. 1) and Chandrasekhar Bharma Katageri (A. 2) were tried in Sessions Cases Nos. 26/8, 27/8, 28/8 and 29/8 all of 1968 by the Sessions Judge, Raichur. In each of these cases, the accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 477-A read with Section 34, I.P.C.2. A-1 was working as Assistant Manager and A. 2 was working as Accounts Clerk in the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Raichur, Koppal Branch. The prosecution case was that the accused persons working in such capacity as stated above, in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal breach of trust of certain amounts mentioned in each of these cases and in order to cover up the offence of criminal breach of trust, the accused persons wilfully and with intent to defraud, falsified the accounts in the books of the societies in which they were working.3. Further, the case of the prosecution was that all embezzlement, all falsific...
Tag this Judgment!Nacharamma Vs. the Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant10; AIR1973Mys10; (1972)2MysLJ224
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore dated 29th January 1968, made in Misc. Case No. 461 of 1964 by which the said Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application for compensation on the ground that her application does not disclose any cause of action. 2. The petitioner's husband died in a motor accident on 12th March, 1964, and she made an application for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/-from respondents 2 to 4. Respondent 2 was the driver of the Bus No. MYD 3349, belonging to the 3rd respondent, the Hindustan Aircraft Limited. (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited), which caused the accident. The 4th respondent is the secretary. Mysore Government Insurance Department. Bangalore 1, in which the bus in question had been insured. The application was filed in the form prescribed under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules. Only the 3rd respondent contested the s...
Tag this Judgment!B. Basavangoud Rachanagoud Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and District Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant11; AIR1973Mys11
ORDER1. The petitioner who Is a stamp vendor at Hospet in Bellary District, has challenged in this writ petition the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Hospet dated the 22nd day of April 1969, canceling the licence granted to him to vend stamps under the Mysore Stamp Act. 1957 on theground that he has not executedan agreement prescribed under theprovisions of the Board StandingOrder 77 (iii) contained in the MadrasStamp Manual. The District of Bellaryformerly formed part of the then Stateof Madras and became part of the Part BState of Mysore somewhere in the year3953. The Indian Stamp Act was amended in Madras by the Madras Legislature which was in force in the Districtof Bellary continued to be operative until the Mysore Stamp Act. 1957 came tobe passed by the Legislature of the NewState of Mysore extending (its- application to the entire new State of Mysoreincluding Bellary. 2. The petitioner was a stamp, vendor he having obtained the necessary licence from the year 1944. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kechanda Ponnappa and anr. Vs. Chottora Thammaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant202; AIR1973Mys202; (1972)2MysLJ487
M. Sadananda Swamy, J. 1. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit out of which the present Second Appeal arises for recovery of Rs. 3,490/- on the basis of an agreement. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants-appellants appealed. The application filed by the appellants in the lower appellate Court for condonation of delay was dismissed. The lower appellate Court accordingly dismissed the appeal as barred by time. 2. It is urged by Sri Rama Bhat on behalf of the appellants that there is no delay in filing the appeal and that the appellants are entitled to deduct the time between the date of the judgment and the date on which the copy application was filed. 3. The judgment of the trial Court is dated 27-6-1969. Copy application was filed on 7-7-1969. The decree was signed on 11-7-1969 though the decree bears the date 27-6-1969 i.e. the date of the judgment. The applicant was told to appear to receive the copies on 21-7-1969. But he actually appeared on 31-7-1969 on which...
Tag this Judgment!Kuntappa Vs. Aiyappa Kuntappa Desai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant50; AIR1973Mys50; (1972)2MysLJ415
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. By my judgment dated 25-10-1971, the Second appeal was dismissed. The appellant filed a review petition which was admitted on 10-3-1972 and the matter is set down for hearing today after notice to counsel for the respondents.2. Heard counsel for both the parties. I recall my judgment dated 25-10-1971 and now proceed to dispose of the second appeal by the following judgment3. The plaintiff is the appellant He has lost in both the courts below. His suit was for possession of certain lands and also for partition and possession of two third share in a house and site. In 1951, the plaintiff was a minor. He was represented by his mother in a compromise entered into with defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit properties amongst others. After attaining majority, the plaintiff has challenged the compromise on the ground that it was not beneficial or binding on him. He instituted Civil Suit No. 15 of 1959 out of which this second appeal arises.4. The suit was dis...
Tag this Judgment!P. Naranappa Vs. A. Shanker Alva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant78; AIR1973Mys78; (1972)2MysLJ284
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J. 1. This petition, under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. (Act 43 of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act. has been presented by an elector of 132 Puttur Assembly Constituency of Sough Kanara District. He has challenged the election of the first respondent who is the returned candidate, on the ground that corrupt practices have been committed and pursuant to the provisions of Section 100(1)(b)(d)(ii) (iii) & (iv) of the Act Respondents 2 to 5 are all candidates, who had unsuccessfully contested the election. The first respondent, A. Shankar Alva, is the successful candidate. On his behalf, Sri B. K. Ramachandra Rao and Sri M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned Counsel, have entered appearance. On behalf of the second respondent, Sri K, Shivashankar Bhat. learned Counsel, has filed power, Respondents 3 to 5 are unrepresented and therefore, treated ex parte. 2. It is unnecessary for the disposal of this petition to set out the details rega...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »