Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Kant237; ILR1982KAR709
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1.This appeal by the first defendant has beer, preferred against the judgment and decree Dt. Mar. 5, 1974 made in O. S. No. 1 of 1973 by the District Judge at Chickmagalur.The facts are shortly as follows:-2. V. Achutan, the plaintiff, instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,700/- with interest payable thereon. The suit was based on a settled account as between the parties. The suit was originally brought against defendants 1 to 5 but subsequently it was withdrawn against defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 for the purpose of maintaining his estate called 'Hosangadi Estate' and for his family necessity had several transactions and maintained accounts with the plaintiff from 1964 to 1968 and finally the accounts were settled and outstanding balance was struck on Nov. 22, 1968. Defendant-1 thereunder signed acknowledging his liability to pay the balance, but failed to pay despite repeated demands.3. Defendant-1 who resisted the suit, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-11-1982
Reported in : 1982(1)KarLJ455; [1982]51STC76(Kar)
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the search and seizure conducted by the respondent, inter alia, contending that the search is without jurisdiction, contrary to the express provisions of law, and therefore, illegal. In the result, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the seizure order which is at exhibit-A to the petition and also for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing him to return all books of account and other documents seized under exhibit-A above. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition may be briefly stated as follows : 3. The petitioner-Hanuman Traders, Huliyar Road, Hiriyur, is a registered partnership firm and in these proceedings is represented by one of the partners M. H. Anjanappa. The petitioner-firm is a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The firm is assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-27-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Kant338; [1984]56CompCas59(Kar); ILR1982KAR565; 1982(1)KarLJ345
1. Appellant Sri Paidi Lakshmayya, who has been unsuccessful in his defence both in the Courts of the Civil Judge and District Judge, Bellary, against the claim of the respondent, Indian Bank Limited (Bank), has preferred this appeal.2. The Bank claimed a money decree against Lakshmayya in 0. S. No. 73 of 1962 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bellary. The suit was decreed as prayed for and came to be confirmed in R. A. No. 1 of 1965 on the file of the District Judge, Bellary.3. The claim has an interesting background. In order to appreciate the question involved in this appeal the facts, on which the Bank's claim against Lakshmayya is based, may be noted:The Bank took over the Rayalaseema Bank Ltd., in the year 1961 and thus succeeded to all its assets. Prior to its merger the Rayalaseema Bank had advanced Rs. 10,000/- as short term loan to two person:- M Chinnappa Reddy and Harinarayanaswamy of Dharmavararn Taluk, in the year 1951. Since, they did not discharge the debt in time the Ray...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-05-1982
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1334; ILR1982KAR474; 1982(1)KarLJ369
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13th January, 1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chintamani, whereby he has rejected the application of bail made by the petitioners. 2. Sidlaghatta Police having registered a case in Crime No. 195/81 against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 353, 142, 153 and 324 IPC sent F.I.R. to the Court. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and made the application for bail as provided under Section 436 Cr.P.C. All the offences were bailable. But the Magistrate refused to entertain the application of bail and rejected it on the ground that the applicants were neither arrested by the police nor they had been summoned by the Court nor they appeared in response to any process of the Court and as such they could as well be released on bail in the police station and any grant of bail would amount to exercising power not vested in the Court. The petitioners have therefore approached this Court questioning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-23-1982
Reported in : ILR1982KAR614
Nesargi, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in exercise of his power under S. 395(2), Cr.P.C. 2. The relevant facts as seen from the order of the learned Sessions Judge are that the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Tiptur, committed the accused Prakash son of Rajanna, aged 15 years, of Ballekatte Village, Tiptur, Tiptur Taluk, to the Court of Session to take trial for having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court. The case was registered in the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 62/81. The Public Prosecutor and Sri K. V. Subramanyaswamy the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the State and the accused, before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge found that the charge-sheet itself described the accused as aged 15 years and therefore a child within the meaning of the provisions of the Karnataka Children Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, he pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-1982
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1553; ILR1982KAR588; 1982(1)KarLJ433
Nesargi, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case Number 110 of 1980, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, have challenged the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on them. They have been convicted for, each one of them, having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The deceased is one Bapu, the eldest brother of the two appellants-accused P.W. 2. Appasaheb is another elder brother of the accused. P.W. 3 Channarawwa and P.W. 10 Melappa are the parents of the accused, P.W. 2 and the deceased. P.W. 4 Susalawwa is the wife of the deceased. These persons and P.Ws. 5 to 9 and 11 are the residents of Bableshwar, in Bijapur District. There is a police station in Bableshwar. P.Ws. 12 to 15 were attached to that police station. P.W. 16 Hanamant and P.W. 17 Fakirappa were the Circle Inspectors of Police of Bijapur Rural Police Station within wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-26-1982
Reported in : [1985]58CompCas217(Kar); 1982(2)KarLJ88
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two applications are by the official liquidator under s. 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with r. 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for orders of this court directing the respondents to pay to him certain sums of money due by them to the company in liquidation (M/s. Navajeevan Enterprises (Mysore) P. Ltd., since ordered to be wound up by an order of this court dated January 6, 1978). 2. The facts alleged by the official liquidator in C.A. No. 172 of 1980 may be taken, as the first respondent in both the applications are common and evidence led in that application is to be treated as common to both the applications by consent of the parties. The first respondent, T. N. Ramalingaiah, was a subscriber to two chits in the company in liquidation which was carrying on business in chit fund transaction. In group NSD II, he had subscribed to chit No. 24 having a value of Rs. 5,000. At the auction held on September 10, 1973, he was the suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-11-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Kant16; 1982(2)KarLJ117
Malimath, J.1. These appeals are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Kirishna Project, Alamatti, challenging awards made by the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, in L.A.C. Nos. 599 to 569 of 1980.2. In pursuance of the preliminary notification deed 22nd Feb., 1979, lands belonging to the respective respondents claimants situate in Walakaldimma village in Hungund Taluk, Bijapur District, were acquired for the Narayanapur Reservoir project. The claimants having claimed compensation at Rs.20,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer, classifying the lands as good and medium type of lands on the basis of the assessment, fixed the market value of good type of lands at Rupees 3,320/- per acre and of medium type of lands at Rs.3,120/- per acre. On reference, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that there is no justification for classifying these lands into two categories and held that all the lands are good type of lands. He awarded compensation at uniform rate of Rs.10,500/- pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-11-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Kant19; ILR1982KAR1226; 1982(1)KarLJ437
1. The appellant, who had secured a judgment and decree in his favour in O.S. No 134 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum,, in R.A. No. 86 of 1979, by which he has set aside that judgment and decree of the Munsiff. The respondent was the defendant in the suit.2. The suit was for redemption of the suit schedule property, it being a non-residential premises situated at Belgaum City and said to have been mortgaged with possession to the defendant under a registered document dated 1-5-1974. According to the plaintiff it was a self-redeeming mortgage redeemable on or after 30-4-1976.3. The defendant resisted the claim contending, inter alia, that the transaction was not a mortgage; that it was a lease; and that he and the plaintiff never intended that the transaction in question should be a self-redeeming mortgage and on the other they intended that to be an lease (para-11 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-22-1982
Reported in : 1982(2)KarLJ206
ORDER1. In this revision, the petitioner who is party No. 1 in 133, Cr.P.C. proceedings instituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveri, in Case No. MAG SR 2/81-82, on the file of his Court, has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 20-6-1981 passed by him chilly-pounding machine installed by him at Badagi in Dharwad District. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the order under revision passed by the Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction, because having called upon the parties to appear before him on 30-6-1981, by his preliminary order, he could not have made any modification in the preliminary order without enquiring into the case as required under the law and the order under revision, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the proceedings initiated are also liable to be quashed, the same being not in accordance with law. 3. It appears, the contention is well founded. The learned Sub-Divisional ...
Tag this Judgment!