Karnataka Court August 1972 Judgments
Reddy Channabasavanna Goud and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1049
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The petitioners 40 in number belong to the village of Hirebannimatti in the district of Bellary where there are two parties one led by Reddy Channabasavanna Goud (petitioner No. 1) and another led by BeKary Basalingappa. Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police of Hadagalli stating that some of the petitioners trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains on 3-5-1972. The Sub-Inspector of Police sent a report to the Sub' Divisional Magistrate, Hospet to take action under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners as there was likelihood of breach of peace. His sworn statement was recorded. Whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code as follows:Whereas it has been made to appear to me from the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hirehadagalli dated 7-5-1972 and his sworn statement dated 11-5-1972.1. By about 20-10-1971 respondents 10 to 13 tr...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Venkatraman Manjanath Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ359
ORDERC. Honnaiah, J.1. This reference arises out of proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. The applicant one Rama Govind Achari lodged a complaint before the Police at Kumta against one Venkataraman Hegde alleging that he had built a compound wall across the footpath leading from his house to the public road obstructing him from using the foot-path. The Sub Inspector of Police, after investigation, submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kumta Division, for taking action under Section 133, Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order dated 16.7.1971 calling upon Venkataraman Hegde to remove the obstruction caused to Rama Govind Achari within 7 days and to show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute. Venkataraman Hegde appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and contended that there was no foot-path as claimed by Rama Govind Achari and that in any case action under Section 133, Cr.P.C. could not be taken in view of the allegations ma...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Sathyapala Vs. Alice D'Souza and Anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant34; AIR1973Mys34
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This second appeal had come up for hearing, in the first instance, before one of us (Sadanandaswamy. J.) and has been referred to a Division Bench under the proviso to Section 6 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 on the ground that the question of law involved in this appeal is an important one and that the decision thereon affects a large number of cases which have already been decided by Subordinate Courts.2. The appellant is defendant 1 respondent 1 is the plaintiff and respondent 2 is defendant 2 in the suit which was tried by the Civil Judge at Chikmagalur. The plaintiff's case is that he was the tenant of the suit land under defendant 1 who purported to sell it to defendant 2 without giving him (the plaintiff) the first option to purchase it as required by Section 22 of the Mysore Tenancy Act. 1952 and that defendant 2 was trying to dispossess him (the plaintiff) from the suit land. He sought for a declaration that he was the tenant of the suit land (sic) for...
Tag this Judgment!The Northern India General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. L. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant107; AIR1973Mys107; (1972)2MysLJ324
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is from a judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), awarding compensation to respondent 1 herein for the death of his son in an automobile accident. 2. The appeal is by the insurer of the motor lorry which caused the death of respondent 1's son. Neither the owner nor the driver of that lorry, has presented any appeal from that judgment of the Tribunal. In the Memorandum of appeal, the appellant has urged grounds which relate to negligence of the driver of the lorry and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal 3. Before going into the merits of those grounds, the appellant who was the insurer, should satisfy that it is open to him to urge those grounds. In Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. v. Helen. (1971 (1) Mys LJ 300) = (AIR 1971 Mys 207) this Court held that an insurer cannot urge...
Tag this Judgment!N. Subramanyam Vs. K. Ummar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ733
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This is a petition presented by Sri N. Subramanyam who is an Advocate practising at Puttur. He has prayed that the following portion in the order Passed by the Principal Munsiff. Puttur, on I.A. No. IV in O.S. No. 255 of 1971. may be expunged:Moreover it is clear that the respondent's learned Advocate wanted to suppress the factum of the Taluk Surveyor's services in the suit locality on 18.9.1971 which could be made out from the following order dated 25.10.1971.Mr. N.S. represents that he couldn't get Taluk Surveyor's assistance, but that positively he could take the Commissioner 15.11.So evidently on 25.10.1971, the fact that the Taluk Surveyor did visit the suit locality on 18.9.1971 was deliberately suppressed and this line was taken during the arguments also. However, during the arguments respondent's counsel wanted to suppress this visit of the Taluk Surveyor in toto. I do not think that this kind of recklessness in making representation in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR841(KAR); [1973]91ITR841(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee is a Government of India undertaking engaged in the manufacture of electric equipments. It has four divisions : (a) equipment, (b) valveses, (c) transistors and (d) capacitors. Of these, the last three are 'newly established industrial undertakings' entitled to the benefit of tax exemption under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as it stood before the section was deleted by the Finance Act, 1967. The original assessment was taken up in appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who modified the Income-tax Officer's order and as a consequence of the order on appeal, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 155 in which the total income was determined at Rs. 2,07,466 as shown below : Rs. Rs.Profit from valveses division ... 11,27,000Loss from :Equipment division 3,43,534Transistor division 2,86,000Capacitor division 2,90,0009,19,53...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar, Bangalore Vs. State of Mysore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant71; AIR1973Mys71; (1972)2MysLJ456
Govinda Bhat, J.1. These are two writ petitions filed by a common petitioner who is a contract carriage operator in the State of Mysore. The common question raised in these writ petitions is whether the Regional Transport Authority which grants a permit can refuse to entertain an application for renewal on the ground that the grant of the original permit was without jurisdiction.2. The petitioner which is a private limited company owns two motor vehicles bearing registration Numbers MYA 2334 and MYD 9001. In respect of the said vehicles the Regional Transport Authority. Bangalore (Respondent 2) had granted contract carriage permit to ply in the State of Mysore. When the period of the permit was about to expire the petitioner made applications for renewal of the permits for a period of five years with effect from 18-8-1971. The applications were made to the second respondent as is required by Rule 128 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules. 1963. The second respondent ordered by its resolut...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Dhundshi and Co. Vs. Bailur Ramaraya Manjunath Shanbhag
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant195; AIR1973Mys195
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the first defendant in O. S. Ho. 476 of 1961 end directed against the judgment and decree made by the learned Civil Judge at Udipi in Appeal Suit No. 48 of 1968. 2. The suit filed by fee respondent is one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alleged to have been overpaid by mistake to the appellant, while rendering accounts in regard to the sales conducted on behalf of the appellant. It would appear that 201 bags of cotton seeds had been entrusted by the appellant to the respondent as his agent for selling them. The terms and conditions governing the relationship of the parties in regard to the business are not expressly set out anywhere. They have, therefore, to be spelled out from the correspondence between the parties. As and when goods were sold the respondent was sending certain amounts realised by such sales after deducting his commission end other charges. He, therefore, sent several sums in...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Somappa Vs. the Mysore Co-operative Appellate Tribunal by Its Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant37; AIR1973Mys37
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is directed against the appellate judgment of the Mysore Co-operative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 251/66. by which it has affirmed the Award of the Arbitrator in Dispute No. 1402/1965-66.2. By the agreement dated 27-3-1955, R. B. Somappa. the petitioner before us was constituted as an Agent for and on behalf of the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., (3rd respondent) to purchase, store and hull the paddy into rice and deliver the same to the Society. Clause 21 of the agreement provides as follows:--'If the first party fails to deliver rice as per the percentage fixed above under clause No. (6) the cost of such quantity has to be paid at the Ex-Mill rate for shortage of rice upto one per cent and retail rate for shortage of rice beyond one per cent to the second party.' The petitioner did not conform to the conditions set out in the agreement. The Society, therefore, filed a dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Lokappa and anr. Vs. Narayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant197; AIR1973Mys197; (1973)1MysLJ16
V.S. Malimath, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under Order 41. Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the Vacation District Judge dated the 17th of May, 1972 on I. A. No. 1 in O. S. No. 13 of 1972. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted the suit on the 22nd of April. 1972 in the Court of Vacation District Judge, Dharwar for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land, measuring an extent of 3 acres 37 guntas. On the same day. the appellants obtained an ex parte order of injunction in their favour. The respondent thereafter, filed his objections and the matter was finally heard by the Vacation District Judge himself. The learned Vacation District Judge passed an order on the 17th of May, 1972 and vacated the interim order of injunction in so far as it pertained to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas. which extent of land was claimed by the respondent defendant to be in his possession. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »