Karnataka Court June 1974 Judgments
Santhammal Vs. S. Thangaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1394; 1974(2)KarLJ422
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. A decree nisi for dissolution of marriage obtained by the petitioner--wife--under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, comes up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the said Act.2. The matter arises in this way: The petitioner was married to respondent on 23-6-1961. Their married life did not turn out to be happy. It looked as though, they married only to quarrel. Not a day passed without abuse from the respondent. The petitioner, however, thought that that would be a passing phase and the birth of a child may bring happiness to the family. She gave birth to a child on 10-6-1962. It was in her parents house. But unfortunately, the respondent did not even once turn up to look at the face of his child. In spite or this indifference, the petitioner along with the child came back and joined her husband somewhere in the beginning of 1963. This time also she did not receive any better treatment. After a couple of months, shewas driven away with the child o...
Tag this Judgment!Alice Raju Vs. B.R. Anthony Raju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant3; ILR1974KAR1390; 1974(2)KarLJ268
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This reference is under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, tor confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner-wife with the respondent.2. The petitioner was married to therespondent on 19/6/1963 at St. Theresa's Church, H. M. T. Colony, Bangalore City. After the marriage, they lived at one of the quarters allotted to the petitioner's father who was then employed at the Watch Factory at the H. M. T. Colony. On 4/4/1934 the petitioner gave birth to a male child. Thereafter they moved with the child to rented premises at Chamarajapet, Bangalore City. There the trouble started tor the petitioner. Her life became miserable due to the quixotic behaviour of the respondent who used to return home always fully drunk and beat the petitioner. Unable to bear this ill-treatment, she returned to her parents house in October, 1966. The respondent perhaps felt happy and for more than three years upto April 1970 he did not care to look at he...
Tag this Judgment!Thippeswamy and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1333; 1974(2)KarLJ518
ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have questioned the validity of some of the provisionsof the Mysore Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by Act 1 of 1974 in so far as it reduces the extent of land which a family can possess from what it was under Section 63 of the Act as it was originally enacted. It is also contended that the compensation fixed by the Legislature in respect of the surplus Land which would be taken away from the family is illusory.In support of these writ petitions, Sri T. Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised the following contentions.(1) Section 63 of the Act read with the definition of the expression 'family' to the extent it affects the right of a woman in respect of agricultural land is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution. It is contended that the Legislature hasdiscriminated against her on the ground of sex.(2) The President having withheld his assent to the Bill which was submitted for his asse...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Exports Ltd. Vs. the Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant128; ILR1974KAR922; 1974(2)KarLJ375
1. This appeal brought on behalf of the defendant is directed against the order dated 29-3-1973 made in O. S. No. 50 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, under Order X, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The matter arises in this way: The respondent the Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd., Bhadravathi, is the plaintiff and the appellant, Karnataka Exports Ltd., Bangalore, is the defendant in O. S. No. 50 of 1972 aforesaid. Both the parties are limited companies. The plaintiff is a State-owned company. The suit was instituted on 14-8-1972 for recovery of a large sum of Rs. 15,72,442-67 from the defendant for the goods supplied. The defendant-company filed its written statement on 14-12-1972. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions for the settlement of issues. On 29-1-1973, the learned Civil Judge Shri Chabbi, made an order to the effect that the officer of the defendant-company, who had verified its written statement, may be kept present for exam...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Krishnaji Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant55; 1974(2)KarLJ509
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of certain agricultural lands situate in Indi Taluk, Bijapur District, which was formerly part of the State of Bombay before the re-organization of States. In the area in which the lands in question are situate, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was in force. Under the said Act a ceiling had been imposed on the extent of agricultural lands which a land-holder can possess at 48 acres. But the said provision had however not been brought into operation. After the re-organization of States, the Legislature of the State of Karnataka passed Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Act 10 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was brought into force on 2-40-1965. The Act was amended by Karnataka Act 14 of 1965. The provisions of the Act as amended by Act 14 of 1965 were questioned before the Supreme Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 202 and 205 of 1966. Those two petitions were heard along with another writ petition presented by Golaknath and oth...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. T. Narayana Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1398; [1975]98ITR422(KAR); [1975]98ITR422(Karn); 1974(2)KarLJ265
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be sustained ?' 2. For the assessment year 1965-66, an assessment order was made by the Income-tax Officer on June 8, 1966, on a total income of Rs. 29,062, which include share of profits from various firms and also dividends and interest on securities. On March 27, 1965, in the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessment had sold 4,735 partly paid 'B' class ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each (Rs. 7.50 paid) of the Syndicate Bank Ltd., Manipal, to Dr. T. M. A. Pai Benevolent Fund Trust at the cost price. The Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkaveeregowda Vs. Devegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant145; ILR1974KAR1403; 1974(2)KarLJ373
ORDER1. This petition under Section 115 C. P. C. is by the plaintiff in original Suit No, 246 of 1969 on the file of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna. He is aggrieved by an order made by the learned Munsiff on 18-3-1974 whereby, he deleted an issue which had been framed earlier, relative to the tenancy pleaded by the parties.2. On behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff it had been contended before the learned Munsiff that when once the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1 of 1974 came into force, the issue of tenancy raised therein could not be tried by him at all. Further, he had no power to delete that issue either. The learned Munsiff relying on the decision of this Court in Tara Bai v. Krishna Pandurang Powar (1972) 1 Mysore LJ 216 = (AIR 1972 Mys 214) came to the conclusion that such an issue would not at all arise in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter. Therefore, he directed the deletion of that issue overruling the objection urged on behalf of the revision petitioner.3. On be...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Basheer Sab Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant186; ILR1974KAR1313; 1974(2)KarLJ371
ORDER1. The question involved in this petition under Article 226, is of considerable importance and that is, whether under the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the Deputy Commissioner of a district is competent to resume land for contravening the terms of its grant.2. The facts leading up to thispetition are:In 1962, the Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk, granted two acres of land each to some of the landless residents of the village. The grant was made at an upset price of Rs. 25 per acre followed by the issuance of grant certificate in which it was stated that the grantees shall not alienate the land for 15 years. The grantees remained in possession for about 6 years, and thereafter, they sold their land to the petitioner for valid consideration.3. On coming to know of the alienation, the Deputy Commissioner issued notices to the grantees to show cause why the land granted to them, should not be resumed. In the enquiry held by him, the p...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Devaraj Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant24; ILR1974KAR918
ORDER1. Questions relating to the recovery of land revenue under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act, fall for decision in this petition under Article 226.2. Petitioner is the owner of certain lands which are in the possession of his tenant. The land revenue payable in respect of the said lands for Fasli years 1380 and 1381 was due from the petitioner. The Tahsildar, Mangalore took action for recovery of the said land revenue by issuing a proclamation of sale of some other properties in the possession of the petitioner. Challenging the action of the Tahsildar, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.3. The following two contentions were urged for the petitioner. (1) That the Tahsildar before issuing a demand notice under Section 165 of the Act, should have taken recourse to the remedies provided under Section 161 of the Act; and (2) The liability to pay land revenue when it is in default, is that of the tenant in possession of the lands and it h...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Vs. the City Municipal Council, Gulbarga
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1107; 1974(2)KarLJ470
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This appeal brought on behalf of the plaintiff arises out of Original Suit No. 7 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Gulbarga in which the plaintiff's suit for damages was decreed in part.2. The respondent-defendant is the City Municipal Council, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipality'). The plaintiff is the owner of several buildings in Gulbarga Town, Three buildings belonging to the plaintiff were demolished by the officers of the Municipality between 10-1-1966 and 21-1-1966 for the purpose of broadening a road. Before carrying out the demolition, the Municipality did not get the land with the buildings acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 40,000 as damages for the tortious act of the defendant,3. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. The quantum of damages was also disputed.4. On the pleadings, though the learned trial Judge framed a number of issues, the only ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »