Karnataka Court July 1975 Judgments
Aslam Ikbal Wali Mohammed Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ317
ORDERS.R. Range Gowda, J.1. The petitioner Aslam Ikbal Vali Mohammed and two others namely Vijayakumar Purushotham Srivastav and Mahamadmiya Abdulgapur Patil who were A-3, A-l and A-2 respectively and who will also hereinafter be referred to as such, were prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Clause 3 of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964, (hereinafter called the Order), punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Laxme-swar, in C. C. No. 514/1974.2. The prosecution case was that on 1-9-1974 at about 5 a. m., the accused were found transporting 76 bags of boiled rice (Kuchalakki) weighing 7318 kgs. worth Rs. 14,636/- in Truck bearing No. MIIT-3623 from Davanagere in Kamataka State to Bombay ip Maharashtra State, without a valid permit.3. In answer to the charge, the accused pleaded guilty, and the learned Magistrate taking the view that the plea ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Narayana Gowda and ors. Vs. I.N. Krishna Madystha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant56; 1975(2)KarLJ403
1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. Respondent is the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder was the petitioner in H. R. C. 663 of 1964 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff, Bangalore, in which he sought the eviction of his tenant, the present judgment-debtor, under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. During the pendency of the H. R. C. Proceedings, an application was filed by the landlord-decree-holder under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. After hearing the parties, an order of eviction was passed on 23-3-1971, giving time to the tenant till 4-4-1971 to vacate the schedule premises. Against that order the judgment-debtor filed the revision petition C. R. P. 867 of 1971 in this Court, which was heard and dismissed on 5-7-1971. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor filed I. A. IV in C. R. P. 867 of 1971 on 22-25/8-1973 praying for extension of time for vacating the premises for one year from 5-7-72. In the affidavit of the j...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Jayaram Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ217
ORDERD. Noronha, J.1. The S.I. of Police, Market Police Station, Bangalore laid a charge-sheet against the accused, proprietor of a bakery in Bangalore, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in G. C. No. 263 01 1975, charging the accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Even before the charge was framed, a representation dated 27-2-1975 was filed before the Court by the Junior Engineer (Elecl.) O & M Unit, Hosahalli, who was the Officer concerned. A. copy of that representation dated 27-2-1975 was filed before the Magistrate on 5-3-1975.3. In the context of this case, it is necessary to reproduce the representation verbatim:IN THE I COURT OF HON. ME-TROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.Complainant: Accused:State by Sri v. S.M. JayaramVeerakempaiahC.C. No. 263/7SSUBMITTED:I request the Hon'ble Court to kindly permit me to compromise the case against the accused lodged under Section 39 of I. E. Act, 1910 r/w Sect...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Lakshmana Reddy Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant36; 1975(2)KarLJ291
ORDER1. Because a common question of law arises for consideration in the above writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this, common order.2. The petitioners in the above petitions were applicants for the grant of permits to ply stage carriages under Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) which disposed of the appeals in which the applications made by the petitioners came up for consideration, held that such of the petitioners in the above petitions in whose history sheets there were more than six entries relating to offences committed within 24 months preceding the date on which the application for the grant permit came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority were disqualified under Rule 104-A (1) (iii) (b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, and in the case of other petitioners it directed an enquiry by the Regional...
Tag this Judgment!Gooti Sannaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ154
ORDERD. Noronha, J.1. Sessions Case No. 5 at 1974 before the Sessions Judge, Mandya, has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 3W of 1974 with Criminal Referred Case No. 53 of 1974, and Sessions Case No. 2 of 1974 has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 396 of M74. The two Sessions Cases relate to the same occurrence and were rightly treated by the learned Sessions Judge, as cross or counter cases. He followed the Prescribed method of trying the earlier case viz., S. C- No. 5 of 1974 to its conclusion, and then the second case viz.. S. C- No. 2 of 1974 was taken, up and also tried to its conclusion. After hearing arguments in both the cases, the learned Sessions Judge pronounced judgments in them simultaneously and disposed them. of. The procedure followed by him conforms to the settled position of law.2. My learned brother and I have u followed precisely the same procedure. In Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1974, which goes along with Cri. Referred Case No. 53 of 1974, arguments were addressed ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Jayaseelan Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant71; 1975(2)KarLJ285
ORDER1. The petitioner applied for the grant of touring cinema licence under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) t, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The District Magistrate, Mysore District, who is the licensing authority granted a No Objection Certificate in respect of an area measuring 150' x 150' comprised in S. No. 60 at Eranagere village, Mysore Taluka, the boundaries of which have been specified in the No Objection certificate granted as per Ex. A. Thereafter, the licensing authority granted a licence on the 28th of August. 1974 for a period of one month from 30th August. 1974 to 29th of September, 1974.2. Respondent 2 challenged the grant of No Objection Certificate and the licence before the State Government under Section 18 of the Act. The State Government in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 18. set aside the No Objection Certificate, and the licence granted i...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyappa and ors. Vs. Patel Rudrappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant29; 1975(2)KarLJ278
ORDER1. What is the duty of a party who has obtained an order from the Court under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Is it for him to correct the cause title of the plaint to give effect to the said order Should he file an application under. O VI, Rule 18 of the Civil P. C. for leave to amend the cause title These are the questions that arise for consideration in this revision petition.2. The matter arises in this way:One Angadi Kariyappa brought a suit for mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit. defendant 3 died. On 21st December. 1968, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXII. Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased On 22nd September. 1969, the Court allowed the application. But unfortunately nobody did the necessary correction to that effect in the cause title of the plaint. Thereafter. the suit was transferred from one Court to another. After the lapse of a couple of years. the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. K.S. Ramdas and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ228
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. In all eighteen persons were charge-sheeted, in regard to the offence pertaining to counterfeiting of currency notes of Rs. 2/- denomination, in C. C. No. 6 of 1968 in the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Kadur. Four persons namely Sundaram Chettiar, Velu, Govindaswamy and Babu, who were arraigned as A-15, A-16, A-17 and A-18 in the chargesheet were shown to be absconding. Shivananda or Shivanna who was arrayed as A-3 in the charge-sheet died while he was apprehended. As A-16 to A-18 were absconding, the case against them was split up and the case against the 13 remaining accused was taken up. They were committed to the Court of Session in Chickmagalur. The case was registered as S. C. No. 5 of 1970. The learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the said accused of all the charges. A-7 before the learned Sessions Judge was H. C. Virappa. He was acquitted as the Special Public Prosecutor, who prosecuted the case there, fairly made a statement that there was no case against hi...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Venkatrao Nilkani Vs. Mahabaleshwar R. Hegde and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant70; 1975(2)KarLJ276
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of Civil P. C is primarily concerned with the validity of a consent decree made by the Munsiff's Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940, shortly called 'the Act'. 2. From the long chain of facts, I set out only those necessary for my decision.N. V. Nilekani ('the petitioner') and Thomas M. Chacko ('Respojident-2') entered into a partnership agreement for running a rice and flour mill at Dharma Colony, North Kanara, under the name and style of 'Sri Umamaheshwara Rice and Flour Mill'. As between the partners, several differences arose relating to the management and conduct of the business of the firm. As per the terms of the agreement, the dispute was referred to an Arbitrator. When the Arbitrator was considering the dispute, the partners expressed their desire to get the firm dissolved as per the joint Jahiri produced by them. The Arbitrator on accepting the Jahiri, made a consent Award dissolving the firm with effect from l6th day of Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Malayali Saroia Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1321
ORDERD. Noronha, J.1. In C. C. No. 2868 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C., Virajpet, a middle-aged woman by name Maleyali Saroja was convicted for an offence under Section 13 read with Section 32 (as charged) of the Karnataka Excise Act. She was convicted. The sentence was R.I. for a period of three months, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and, in default, S. I. for a further period of fifteen days. The accused went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Coorg, Mercara in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1974. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision petition.2. Very briefly, the prosecution case is that at about 5 a.m. on 21-8-1973 the Excise Inspection party consisting of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and another (who has not been examined) seized from the possession of the accused, three bottles of illicit distilled liquor in Virajoet Town in Coorg District3. Though Sri K. S. Gowrishankar, appearing for the petitioner-accused, was inclined to put forward several attacks against the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »