Karnataka Court November 1974 Judgments
V. Giriappa Setty Vs. Muni Boyee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant205; 1975(1)KarLJ476
ORDER1. The petitioner m this revision petition is the plaintiff. He filed the suit (O. S. No. 157 of 1965) in the Court of the Munsiff. K. G. F., out of which this revision petition arises, for recovery of certain amount due to him. The suit was decreed ex parte on 15-12-1965. That decree was set aside in Mis. No. 13 of 1970 and the suit was restored. The defendant filed his written statement contending inter alia that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that it was barred by time in view of the Karnataka Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1966. which came into force in the year ,1969. A preliminary issue was raised, 'namely, 'whether the suit was maintainable'. On this issue, the Court below held that as the Karnataka Agriculturists' Relief Act. 1928, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1928' being repealed by the Act of 1966 and as the latter Act was struck down by this Court in D. M. Thippeswamy v. State of Mysore. ((1970) 1 Mys...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Nagabhushan Rao Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant132; 1975(1)KarLJ475
ORDER1. The petitioner is an Advocate. He appears for the complainant in P. G. No. 16 of 1974 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindhnur. The petitioner is blind. Hence he made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindhnur, to allow him to record the proceedings of the Court with the aid of a tape-recorder in order to facilitate the conduct of the case. The learned Magistrate rejected the above application. Hence this petition.2. At the outset it should be mentioned that there is no statutory provision or a rule of practice which authorises a Counsel or a party in a proceeding before a Court to have the proceedings of the Court recorded on a tape. Hence the question of issuing any writ in the nature of mandamus or other direction to the Judicial Magistrate does not arise.3. It is, however, argued by Mr. M. S. Gopal learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order of the Magistrate refusing to permit the petitioner to make use of a tape-record...
Tag this Judgment!Khaji Abdul Wahab Siddiqui Vs. the Government of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant133; ILR1975KAR644; 1975(1)KarLJ416
ORDER1. The short question involved in this case is whether the appointment of a Naib Kazi or a Deputy Kazi by a Kazi has to be made with the previous approval of the State Government.2. The petitioner was functioning as a Kazi under the Kazis Act, 1880 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the District of Gulbarga. That in the year 1948 the petitioner appointed his son respondent-3 as a Naib Kazi with the previous approval of the State Government. In the year 1972 the petitioner decided to terminate the appointment of respondent-3 as Naib Kazi and he gave a petition to the District Wakf Committee to permit him to da so. The President of the District Wakf Committee granted his request. Respondent-3 was accordingly removed by the petitioner. Thereafter res-pondent-3 appears to have moved the State Government to restore him to his former position as Naib Kazi. The State Government by its order dated 14-9-73 directed that respondent-3 should be continued as Naib Kazi notwiths...
Tag this Judgment!Gurawwa and anr. Vs. Dilawar HussaIn Shiledar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant206; ILR1975KAR989; 1975(1)KarLJ409
1. This second appeal arises out of O. S. No. 131/63 filed by the appellants in the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Gokak. The suit is for a declaration that the decree passed in O. S. 111/51 in favour of respondents 4 to 7 on 23-9-1955 is not binding on them, that the same is null and void and for a perpetual injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit.2. According to the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is the protected tenant of survey No. 17 and the second plaintiff is the protected tenant of survey No. 68 both situated within the limits of Gokak and they are in possession cultivating the lands as tenants since 30 to 40 years. Defendants-respondents 4 to 7 had filed a suit for partition. Regular Original Suit No. 111/51 against the other co-sharers, defendants-respondents 8 to 14. The deceased husband of the first plaintiff as well as the second pl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Jewels Paradise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR265(KAR); [1975]101ITR265(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty of Rs. 30,000 levied on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm and assessed as such. The year of account is the one ended with June 30, 1963, and the matter relates to the assessment year 1964-65. 3. On September 6, 1963, the Central Excise authorities conducted a raid under the Gold Control Order of the assessee's shop and also the residences of the partners. The partners were all staying together. At their residence, an amount of Rs. 1,42,000 was found. At the shop a sum of Rs. 76,970 was found. The books of account of the assessee as on September 6, 1963, showed the existence of cash of Rs. 1,37,828.84. Thus, an excess...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. S. Krishnaveni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1363
V.S. Malimath, J.1. Smt. S. Krishnaveni has challenged the detention of her husband T. Sreenivsa Setty, S/o J. G. Thimmaiah Setty, No. 27, Chowdeshwari Temple Street, Bangalore-53. made by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, by his order dated 27th September, 1974, marked as Exhibit-A, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Section 3 (1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act 26 of 1971) as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order states that the detenu has been detained with a view to prevent him 'from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods or abetting other persons to smuggle goods or dealing in smuggled goods'. In accordance with the said order, the detenu has been detained in the Central Jail at Bangalore. The grounds of detention which hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›