Karnataka Court July 1977 Judgments
M. Madiah Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ734
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mysore, confirming on appeal the judgment of the J. M. F. C, Chamarajanagar, in a case Under Sections 332 and 355 of the I. P. Code, convicting the petitioner-accused and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence Under Section 332 I. P. Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-for the offence Under Section 355 of the I. P. Code.2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner-accused was one of the non-official members of the Social Welfare Sub-Committee of the Taluk Develop- ment Board, Chamarajanagar. The complainant Shivaiah (P. W. 2) the Social Welfare Inspector and Rangegowda (P. W. 1) the Block Development Officer, were official members of that committee. The President of the said Committee was Venkataiah (P. W. 3) and he was presumably a non-official member of the said Committee. It appears, Rangegowda (P. W. 1) had deputed Shivaiah (P. W. 2) to go along with the accused for an ins...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Motichand Sheth Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ736
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, confirming on appeal the order of the Deputy Commissioner of that District confiscating 33 bags of sugar Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act for the petitioner having contravened Clause (3) of the Karnataka Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1962.2. It was stated, that the petitioner being a dealer in sugar, was issued a licence under Clause (3) of the said Order which required him to carry on his business at CTS No. 1868 of Jamkhandi. On 31-7-1976 the petitioner took delivery of 90 bags of sugar from Ugar Sugar Factory, District Belguam and brought them to Jamkhandi. While on his way he sold 57 bags of sugar to his customers. Thus, he brought only 33 bags of sugar to CTS No. 1868 at Jamkhandi and placed them on his stock. On the following day, i.e., on 1-8-1976, his shop was raided by the P.S.I, of Jamkhandi and it was found that 57 bags of sugar were sold on the way and not at CT...
Tag this Judgment!Basalingappa and anr. Vs. Ramakant Mallappa Desai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant1; 1977(2)KarLJ290
ORDER1. These two revisions under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), are directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bijapur, partly allowing the petition of the landlord under Section 21 provisos (h) and (i) of the Act and directing the eviction of the tenant from the first floor of the schedule premises bearing CTS Nos. 1522 to 1525 in Ward No. II of Bijapur City. 2. One Ramakant Mallappa Desai owns the schedule premises and filed his application before the II Additional Munsiff, Bijapur (H. R. C, No. 19 of 1967), for vacation of the premises by his tenant Basalingappa Mugbasappa Pattanshetti, under Section 21 (a) (h) and (i) of the Act, and the pleas were; (1) that the tenant failed to pay the rent; (2) that the premises were bona fide and reasonably required for occupation by the landlord; and (3) that the premises needed major repairs and unless the same were vacated, the repair work could not be carried o...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. K. Shyama Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ459
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is filed Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying that inherent powers of this Court be invoked to set aside the order dated 1-12-1976 (passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (VI Court) Bangalore City, in C. C No. 837 of 1975.2. The few necessary facts are that the said case was registered on a private complaint instituted on 21-6-1975. After the petitioners appeared in response to the summons issued to them i. e., after the Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons, they raised a few contentions and one of them was that the complaint was not maintainable as there was already an appeal pending as against the order said to have been relied upon in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has rejected this contention.3. From what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, it is clear that the order in question is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2), Cr.PC4. It is also clear that no criminal revision petition could ha...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Rao Vs. Mohd. Abdul Mateen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ295
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 11-6-1976 passed by the Munsiff, M. F. C, Bidar in C. C. No. 38/3 of 1975- The petitioner is A-l in the said case and the respondent is the complainant. By the said order the Magistrate has held that the petitioner and the remaining accused are not in law entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses to be examined by the complainant-respondent in support of his case even by virtue of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.2. The few facts necessary for a decision in this case may be stated as follows ;In regard to an incident the concerned police investigated and filed a charge-sheet. It was registered as C. C. No- 1060 of 1973. Almost as a counterblast the respondent-complainant filed a private complaint against ten persons alleging offences Under Sections 448, 323, 326 and 395, IPC Cognizance of the offences Under Sections 448, 323 and 325, IPC only was taken by the Magistrate against eight persons viz., first ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswatibai Vs. Malati
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1977
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas387(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The sole question that arises for consideration in this second appeal relates to the right of the appellant under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938.2. The facts which are necessary for the determination of the question are :One Madhukar Kulkarni had taken a policy of assurance for Rs. 2,000 with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was a teacher and the premiums were paid out of his salary income. He had nominated his mother as a nominee under section 39. The policy was taken on 14th December, 1959, and the assures died on 31st October, 1966, leaving behind his wife (the plaintiff) and the mother (the defendant). In the normal course, each would have got one-held of the assured amount. But, the mouth being the nominee, claimed the entire amount on the sole ground that the nomination confers on her an absolute rights to the exclusion of the wife. So, the wife filed a suit for declaration and also for recovery of half the amount due under the policy of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sowcar T. Thimmappa Vs. S.L. Prasad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant25; 1977(2)KarLJ346
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-4-1973 in O. S. No. 2 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore decreeing respondent-plaintiff's suit for recovery of arrears of rent with interest end costs.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are :Respondent having come into possession of a vacant site in Mysore under a lease granted to him by the Nanjaraj Bahadur Chatram Fund Committee, Mysore, granted a sub-lease of the same in favour of the appellant, who took the site for the purpose of running a toddy shop therein. It is not disputed that the appellant commenced his business of vending toddy on the said site from 1-1-1968. It is also common ground that there was an agreement of lease dated 31-12-1967 executed between the parties, which, however, was not registered. After being put into possession of the said site, appellant did not make any payments towards rent to...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Basavantanpa Sureban and ors. Vs. Ningangouda Dyavanagouda Pat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ460
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramdurg, in C.C. No. 801 of 1976, dated 30-12-1976, issuing process against petitioners-accused for the offences Under Sections 193 and 455 of the I. P. Code.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are these: A private complaint was filed by one Ningangouda, respondent, against Rajanikant J. Kakade, head Constable of Ramdurg Police Station and these three petitioners-accused alleging that A-4 was doing police and revenue patilki service of Mudakavi village and, as such, had some rivalry with the complainant Ningangouda, who was the revenue watandar patel. Accordingly, A-4 being friendly to Rajanikant J. Kakade, the Head-Constable, both of them conspired to disrepute the complainant so that he would be rendered unfit for the patilki service. With that object in view, the three petitioners and Rajanikant J. Kakade, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›