Karnataka Court April 1973 Judgments
B.V. Mokashi Vs. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1973
Reported in: (1974)ILLJ153Kant; (1973)2MysLJ76
Acts/Rules/Orders: Electricity Supply Act, 1948; Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952; Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 14(3), 19, 34 and 45(2); Companies Act; Life Insurance Corporation Act - Section 11(2); Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947; Land Acquisition Act; General Clauses Act - Section 3; Mysore Financial Code, 1958 - Rule 2; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1), 31, 46, 226, 298, 311(2) and 367OPINIONNarayana Pai, C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is : 'Whether the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution ?'. The referring Bench observes that the orders of this Court in two writ petitions, viz., V. H. Gokhale v. MSRTC, W.P. 2113/67, and Ramachandriah v. General Manager, MSRTC, W.P. 1258/67, which take the view that the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation cannot be regarded as a State for purposes of Art...
Tag this Judgment!Appanna Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ421; (1973)1MysLJ539
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the First Class Magistrate, Hassan under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), in C. Mis. No. 123 of 1971 forfeiting the bond executed by the petitioner as surety for keeping an accused in C. C. No. 1508 of 1970 present in Court, in favour of that Court, and levying a penalty of the full amount of the bond, viz., Rs. 500/- and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 1972.2. The few facts necessary for a decision in this matter may be narrated as follows:The accused in C. C. No. 1508 of 1970 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Hassan, was charge-sheeted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code, and this petitioner and another person stood surety for the said accused. The petitioner executed a bond in favour of the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Industries Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ35; (1973)1MysLJ537
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the goods, i.e., rolls of stainless steel sheets, made an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. (III Court) Bangalore, seeking for an order under Section 523, Cr. P. C. The specific prayer is that the rolls may be delivered to him on account of certain circumstances set out by him in his application, as he is the person entitled to it. The said application was made in C. R. Nos, 35 and 36 of 1973 before the learned Magistrate.2. It would appear that the rolls in question were seized from two lorries and according to the prosecution, were concerned with the commission of an offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act. It may be relevant to note that as per the contents of the application made before the learned Magistrate by the police, they were of the view that apparently these goods were concerned with the commission of such offence. At that stage, the present petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Gopalan Nair Vs. P. Kelu and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ210; (1973)1MysLJ420
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The facts that have given rise to this petition are these:Respondent 1 filed a complaint against his driver by name Chandran alleging that he had committed theft of his car bearing No. KLC 4055 alone with R. C. and Insurance certificate. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chickpet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 10/73 against Chandran. He seized the car along with R. C. at Calicut from the possession of the petitioner and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Ist Court), Bangalore City. The petitioner arid respondent No. 1 both filed applications before the Magistrate praying that the car may be given to their respective custody. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had a better claim for custody of the vehicle and accordingly he passed an order that the car be returned to respondent No. 1 during the pendency of investigation subject, of course, to certain conditions. It is this order that if challenged ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›