Karnataka Court August 1972 Judgments
M. Mallikarnjunaiah Vs. Shivanna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant40; AIR1973Mys40; (1973)1MysLJ120
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The defendant in suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage, claiming to be the tenant of the land earlier to the mortgage, challenges in this appeal the decree for khas possession made against him.2. The facts are these:-- The land S. No. 113 of Kommaghatta Village, measuring 3 acres and odd was the property of the family of one Bhadramma, Channaveeraiah, the eldest son, leased the land to the defendant on wara basis. Channaveeriah, died in the year 1948. The property thereafter was divided between the surviving brothers, and the disputed one half came to the share of Revanna. Revanna leased his share to the defendant on gutta basis for eight years. It was an unregistered lease. The annual rent reserved therein was three pallas of paddy. After the expiry of the period, the lease was renewed for a further period of ten years, but that deed was also unregistered. When the defendant was thus in possession of the land Revanna for his personal necessity mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Ganapaiah Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Hassan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR479(KAR); [1973]91ITR479(Karn); (1973)1MysLJ10
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'that Act'. For the assessment year 1967-68, the respondent made an order of assessment on the petitioner on March 11, 1968. While determining the taxable income for the assessment year, certain depreciation allowances on the assets of the petitioner were allowed. The said order of assessment was rectified by respondent in exercise of the powers vested under section 37 of the Act by his order dated May 28, 1971. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before making an order of rectification. The second ground was that the view of the law taken by the respondent with regard to the allowance of initial depreciation is patentee erroneous. 2. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in which it is stated that a notice was issued to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Kempegowda and ors. Vs. Ramegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant73; AIR1973Mys73; (1972)2MysLJ268
1. This second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Datar. J.. under the proviso to Section 6 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961, as his Lordship felt that this appeal involves e substantial question of law on which there is no ruling of this Court, while the rulings of the former High Court of Mysore and of other High Courts on that question, are conflicting.2. The facts which led up to this appeal are briefly these: The appellants-plaintiffs had brought a suit O. S. No. 850 of 1954, on the file of the Munsiff. Hassan, against respondent 1 (defendant 1) for possession of the suit property. Ultimately that suit was decreed in appeal in their favour. When they sought to obtain delivery of possession of the property in Ex. Case No. 85 of 1961, they were resisted by respondent 2 (defendant 2). Their application for removal of obstruction was dismissed in Mis. Case No. 68 of 1961 on 21-11-1962. Thereafter, they brought the present suit under Order 21. Rule 103. Civil P. C.. for ...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Director of Mines (Safety) Vs. P. Nagbhushanam and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ549
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of the orders passed in C.C. Nos. 112, 110, 111 of 1971 respectively on the file of the Munsiff-cum-J.M.F.C. Kudligi.The facts that have given rise to these petitions are these: The accused in these cases were charged under Sections 70, 72-C(1)(b) and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Regulations, 1961. The accused raised a preliminary point, that the complaints filed against them by the State (Government of India) represented by the Deputy Director of Mines (Safety), Bellary Sub-Region, Bellary were not maintainable as barred by time. The learned Magistrate upheld the objections and consequently dismissed the complaint petitions. Aggrieved by these decisions these revisions are filed by the Deputy Director of Mines (Safety). The question that arises for decision in these petitions being the same, they are considered together.2. The Deputy Director of Mines (Safety) filed four complaints aga...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Prakash Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant140; AIR1973Mys140; (1972)2MysLJ470
ORDER1. The petitioner is a contract carriage operator. He holds a permit for his vehicle bearing Registration No. MYA 2499. Under the said permit, he is entitled to operate his service throughout the State of Mysore. It was issued in the year 1962 and has been renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore from time to time.2. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority Bangalore, to whom the powers under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called 'the Act', have been delegated, passed an order on 13-7-1972 (Exhibit A) suspending petitioner's contract carriage permit for a period of 30 days to take effect from the date of service of the order, which states that the petitioner has plied his vehicle on 4-7-1972 from Kolar to Bangalore when it was checked by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Flying Squad 'C' Central Range, Bangalore and it was found that the vehicle had picked up passengers enroute and had also picked up individual passengers in contravention...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Nagappa Sannigappa Sannakki and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1570
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this revision case briefly stated arc thus: The complainant instituted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Additional Munsiff, Ranebennur, on February 12, 1970 against one Ninganagouda Shivanagouda Patil and another alleging that they had committed theft of a pair of bullocks. The learned Magistrate, referred the matter for investigation to the Police to satisfy himself about the truth, or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The police sent a 'B' report on June 1st, 1970, stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. The learned Magistrate did not accept the 'B' report The complainant examined himself and one witness in support of his case. The learned Magistrate at that stage looked into the papers relating to the investigation made by the police and on the basis of the information tion contained therein, observed:Consideration of the case paper goes to show that the com...
Tag this Judgment!Shivadeviamma and ors. Vs. Sumanji and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant296; AIR1973Mys296
Chandrashkkhar, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Honniah and Venkataramiah, JJ., has, by its order dated 23-6-1972, referred to a Full Bench the following questions:'Whether it is open to a Full Bench to decline to answer the questions referred to it under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961, and to send back the case to the Division Bench, without answering the questions referred to it, but with a direction to give reasons in support of the order of reference?'2. We shall briefly narrate how the above question came to be referred to this Full Bench. In the present appeal (in which the above question has been referred to this Full Bench), one of the questions that arose for determination was whether a female member of an Aliyasanthana family constituting a Nissanthathi Kavaru, can dispose of by a will her share in the Kutumba of which she is a member. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that though under Section 36 (3) of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramarao Mane Vs. Radha Rukmini Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ547
ORDERAhmed Ali Khan, A.C.J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the order of the City Magistrate Mysore, dated 23.12.1971, passed in C. Mis. 222 of 1970 on the file of his court. That order was made in a proceeding under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner in this Court is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent filed an application under Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. against her husband on the ground of cruelty on the part of the husband. It was alleged that the husband abused and deserted her and refused to maintain her.3. In his objection statement, the husband denied each and every allegation that was put forth by the petitioner (wife) in her petition. It was further contended on behalf of the husband that the City Magistrate. Mysore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition inasmuch as according to her own showing, the petitioner was residing with her husband in Bangalore when she was taken away from his house by her fathe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rama Rao Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant108; AIR1973Mys108; (1972)2MysLJ428
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J. 1. This matter arises under the Mysore Religious end Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 (hereinafter called the Act'). The petitioner is the Manager of Sureshwara Deyaru Temple in Thirthahalli Taluk, which is a Muzrai Institution governed by the Act. The first respondent is the State of Mysore; the second respondent is the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments and the third respondent is the Tahsildar and Muzrai Officer, Thirthahalli Taluk. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 41 (4) of the Act, the former State of Mysore had framed Rules which, inter alia, provided for sanction of scale of expenditure in Muzrai Institutions governed by the Act. In the purported exercise of that power, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 27th September 1966, besides fixing the scale of expenditure for the institution of the petitioner, determined that a sum of Rs. 1,978/- was payable towards what is termed as 'percentage contribution' and 'reserve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›