Karnataka Court February 1978 Judgments
Mudakappa Vs. Rudrappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant136; ILR1978KAR872; 1978(1)KarLJ459
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The plaintiff In O.S. No. 11/1972 on the file of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C., Haveri is the appellant in this appeal. He instituted the said suit for the permanent injunction against the defendants, respondents herein, restraining them from interfering with his possession of the three suit lands bearing R.S. Nos. 134 and 135 of Kittur village and R.S. No. 109 in Maidar village in Haveri Taluk, Dharwar District. The facts of the case briefly are these; There was one Mudakappa, who died several years ago leaving behind him four sons by name: Virupaxappa, Rudrappa (defendant-1), Chinnappa (Defendant-2) and Basappa. In the year 1963 there was a partition in the said family amongst the four sons. At that partition, the properties belonging to the family were divided. The plaintiff's case was that the three lands in question, which were being cultivated by his father Virupaxappa as a sole lessee were not the subject-matter of partition and that on his (Virupaxappa's) dea...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanthagouda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1045
ORDERG.N. Sabhahit, J.1. These two petitions are for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C. An F.I.R. is submitted against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 327 and 396 I.P.C. In the case of Mahanthagouda, petitioner in Cr. P. No. 94/1978, it is submitted that his name is not to be found either in the complaint or in the F.I.R. which is based on the complaint and so, there is no case made out against him, prima facie, under Section 396 I.P.C. and hence, he should be released on anticipatory bail. As for the other petitioner - Nana-gouda, petitioner in Cr. P. No. 101/1978- it is submitted that though no doubt his name appears in the complaint and the F.I.R. the Assistant Medical Officer, Kallur, has certified that he was under his treatment on 8-12-1977 and that he was advised complete rest. So, the learned Counsel submitted that in all probability, he was not present at the spot and did not participate in the crime. Hence, he submitted that he shoul...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shivashankarappa and ors. Vs. the Davangere City Municipality, Dava ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant140; 1978(1)KarLJ448
ORDER1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the number of councilors required for tha resolution expressing want of confidence in a President or Vice-President of a Municipal Council by which, they stand removed from their respective offices under Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is two-thirds of the actual number of councilors or two-thirds of the total number of councilors prescribed under Section 11 of the Act.2. The petitioners in this writ petition are six Municipal councilors of the Davangere City Municipal Council which is functioning under the provisions of the Act.3. It is not disputed that number of councilors of Davangere City Municipal Council fixed under Section 11 of the Act, is 35. It is also not disputed that out of 35 councilors elected, one councillor died and another ceased to he a councillor and consequently, there are only 33 councilors. Two resolutions dated 19-1...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanjaneyulu Vs. K.M. Malloji Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1047
ORDERG.N. Sabhahit, J.1. This revision petition is by the convicted accused person in C. C. No. 494 of 1976 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, wherein he was tried for an offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having sold adulterated milk on 8-1-1975, The Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo S. J. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. l.000/-, in default, to undergo S. I. for two months. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, accused went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge at Bellary in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1077. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 11-3-1977 confirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate, but set aside the order of sentence and remitted the case back to the learned Magistrate as the accused was not given an opportunity to submit on the aspect of sentence. The learned Magistrate after hearing the accused on the aspect o...
Tag this Judgment!Thayarammal Vs. People's Charity Fund, Bangalore and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant125; 1978(1)KarLJ438
ORDER1. The legality of the order of the Licensing Authority under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') refusing to regrant the cinematograph licence to the petitioner, on the ground that the possession of the petitioner of the building in which she has been exhibiting the cinematograph films and the equipment, is not lawful and the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the Licensing Authority is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.2. The petitioner became the lessee of the premises together with equipments meant for exhibiting cinematograph films, called IMPERIAL TALKIES situate in the City of Bangalore. The People's Charity Fund, a Trust registered under the Trust Act, is the owner, and lessors of the aforesaid building and equipments. After the expiry of the earlier period of leases of the same premises and equipment, the latest lease which is relevant for this case came into existence through a registe...
Tag this Judgment!Kallaappa and ors. Vs. Mariappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ730
ORDERN.R. Kudoor, J.1. The seven petitioners in this criminal petition were the accused in C. C. No. 312 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Yelburga. They have filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the above criminal case and to discharge them.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:The respondent Mariappa, a resident of Yelburga in Raichur District, has filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that all of them conjointly trespassed into the land bearing S. No. 433/A situate at Yelburga which was in his possession at about 11 a.m. on 11-2-1976 and forcibly cut the standing wheat crop raised by him and took it away with dishonest intention. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. After the petitioners entered appearance, the respondent examined two witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned Magistrate, on assessing the material produced before him, framed a ch...
Tag this Judgment!H. Puttappa and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant148; ILR1978KAR605; 1978(1)KarLJ302
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Section 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the legality of the orders made thereunder whereby the Deputy Registrars of different districts have directed the amalgamation of co-operative societies of more than eight hundred. Almost all the affected societies have approached this Court with similar contentions. For the present disposal, however, we have taken only a few of those writ petitions. 2. The petitioners in most of the writ petitions' are the amalgamating co-operative societies. But in some, the members of such societies have also joined as petitioners. The orders which they attack are all stereotyped. They provide for compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies which are primary credit societies. It was uniformly stated that the amalgamation was found to be necessary in public interest and to secure the proper management o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. C.P. Chandrasekhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: ILR1978KAR1229; [1979]116ITR84(KAR); [1979]116ITR84(Karn); 1978(2)KarLJ105
Malimath, J.1. The Division Bench consisting of Venkataramaiah J. and Venkatachala J. has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench : 'Where a person holds the agricultural land in question as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others, can assessment be made in accordance with s. 10(1)(a) read with s. 3(3) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957, ignoring s. 10(2)(a) of that Act ?' 2. S. 3(3) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), will have no application to a case where a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others. S. 3(3) of the Act applies only if the person holds property as tenants-in-common and derives agricultural income. If a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly fo...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narasimha Bhandary Vs. V. Vijaya Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant115; ILR1978KAR752; 1978(1)KarLJ429
Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married on 4-12-1966. The appellant filed a petition under Section 10(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in M. C. 3 of T971 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, for judicial separation from the respondent on the ground that the respondent had without any justifiable reason deserted him. The respondent contested the petition. In the course of her statement of objections filed in that case, she pleaded that she was staying away from her husband on account of cruelty on the part of her husband and that she was not willing to stay with him. The court ultimately upheld the case of the appellant and passed a decree for judicial separation on 17-7-1972.2. The respondent, thereafter filed a petition under Section 10(2) of the Act on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, out of which this appeal arises, requesting the Court to rescind the decree for judicial separation. In ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. C.P. Chandrasekhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant190
Malimath, J.1. The Division Bench consisting of Venkataramiah. J; and Venkatachala, J. has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench:'Where a person holds the agricultural land in question as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others, can assessment be made in accordance with Section 10 (1) (a) read with Section 3 (3) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ignoring Section 10 (2) (a) of that Act.'Section 3 (3) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), will have no application to a case where a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others. Section 3 (3) of the Act applies only if the persons hold property as tenants-in-common and derive agricultural income. If a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »