Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: dehra dun act 1871 Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Page 4 of about 14,121 results (0.052 seconds)

Sharanappa S/o Basappa Matur Vs. Mohammad Ali S/o Dawalsab Chittaragi ...

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

..... of its judgment that, the trial court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under sections 118 and 139 of n.i. act. the statute mandates that once the signature of an accused on the cheque is established, then these reverse onus clauses become operative. in such a situation, ..... crl.a no.200030 of 2017 20. whenever execution of negotiable instruments is admitted, then, the court may draw presumption under section 118 of the n.i. act, which reads as under:"118 presumptions as to negotiable instruments. until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) of consideration that every ..... capacity to lend loan and the amount due is not legally recoverable debt, accordingly, acquitted the accused without drawing presumption available under section 139 of n.i. act. it is contended that, the complainant has discharged initial burden casted upon him, but, the accused has not discharged the burden. the trial court has wrongly .....

M/s Power Smart Media Pvt Ltd Vs. Union Of India

Court : Karnataka

..... s. power smart media private limited also known as m/s. power smart media (opc) private limited power tv trademark holder incorporated and registered under companies act, 1956 represented by its director dabbegatta gowda madhu lakshmana din number:08262. 81 no.7, 11th main, mathikere main road1t stage, gokula extension yeshwanthpur bengaluru - ..... 2. m/s. mitcon infraprojects pvt. ltd power tv: permitted company under ministry of information and broadcasting incorporated and registered under companies act, 1956 represented by its director mr. shrikant mitesh bhangdiya din number0262816 b-61, floor-6, plot no.210 'b' wing, mittal tower free press ..... media private limited also known as m/s. power smart media (opc) private limited power tv trade mark holder incorporated and registered under companies act, 1956 represented by its director dabbegatta gowda madhu lakshmana din number0826281 no.7, 11th main mathikere main road1t stage, gokula extension yeshwanthpur bengaluru 560 054 .....

Nanjegowda Vs. Channamma and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant40; AIR1952Mys40; ILR1951KAR530

..... regarded as authoritative in the province of madras, marriage concludes the period within which a sudra may be adopted.' in this view of the law which has been recognized and acted upon in mysore iron the date of the decision in '10 mys ccr 711', the alleged adoption of defendant 1 by marigowda would be invalid even if true; and it .....

Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E. Islamia

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant14; AIR1952Mys14; ILR1952KAR102

..... the trust, there being no allegation of misappropriation of trust property, section 10 had no application and the suit was governed by article 124 or 144, limitation act. their lordships pointed out that section 10 is inapplicable, inasmuch as the defendant did not deny the endowment but on the contrary asserted their own right as managers ..... was no specific statutory way in which a trust could be created. (even otherwise we do not think that is a very germane consideration. section 10, limitation act, merely requires for ita application that a property should have been vested in the defendant in trust for an express purpose. as pointed out already the defendants ..... out that by taking upon himself the administration of the trust property and taking possession of the trust property, the defendant became an express trustee by his own act. they further point out : 'it seems to be established clearly that if express trusts are created and some outside trespasser who has no business to interfere .....

Hutchegowda Vs. Chennigegowda

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1953Kant49; AIR1953Mys49; ILR1952KAR49

..... public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. wood-roffe and ameer ali in their commentary under section 4, evidence act, observes :'presumptions of fact or natural presumptions are inferences which the mind naturally and logically draws from given facts without the help of legal direction. they ..... broadproposition put forward on behalf of theplaintiffs were to be accepted, in a largemajority of cases proof of execution such asis contemplated by section 67,.. evidence act,would become unnecessary. the effect of theregistration endorsement is not to prove execution as is required by. section 67 but only toprove an admission made by ..... -- 'brij baj saran v. alliance bank of simla', air 1936 lah 946 (p) that a sub-registrar's endorsement duly made under section 60, registration act, is relevant evidence for proving the execution of the document. in the present instance, the copy shows that the arbitrators themselves admitted the execution of the document .....

Venkataramana Vs. Government of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant34; AIR1952Mys34; (1953)31MysLJ97

ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code, by the First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. It is against that judgment, the revision to this Court is preferred by the petitioner.2. Both the lower Courts have considered the evidence in detail and reached the conclusion. A few salient features relating to the case may be stated in order to test the appreciation of evidence. Shivalingappa, the petitioner, is alleged to have enticed away one Nanjamma, the wife of the complainant, and detained her at Bangalore with intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The complainant, the husband of the said Nanjamma, who is examined as P. W. 8 has sworn to the fact that the accused was frequenting his house and talking to his wife in familiar terms; in consequence thereof he had expressly prohibited him from visiting his hous...

Basappa Vs. Nanjamma

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1951Kant122; AIR1951Mys122

ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is an application under Order 38, Rule 5, read with Sections 107 and 151, Criminal P. C., for attachment before judgment of the properties described in the schedule, on the ground that the respondent defendant is about to dispose of the properties and that her doing so will leave the plaintiff-appellant without any adequate means of recovering the decree amount in case he obtains a decree in this Court. An affidavit has been filed by the applicant and in the first portion of it he sets out under what circumstances he had got the properties attached in the lower Court. The suit was later dismissed and the order of attachment of that Court has come to an end.2. The point for consideration is whether there is now any reason for attaching before judgment the properties of the defendant. As stated in Order 38, Rule 5, the Court must be satisfied by affidavit dr otherwise, first, that the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or that ...

C.N. Hassankhan Vs. Government of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant39; AIR1952Mys39

..... no doubt includes the animals, vessels carts or other vehicles used to hold or carry the same. there is a very similar section. -- section 11 -- in the opium act which also lays down that the animals and conveyances used in carrying contraband opium are liable to confiscation. these sections do not however say that confiscation is imperative in all ..... 'omrita nath mitter v. administrator-general of bengal', 25 cal 54. in that case it was contended that by virtue of s. 35 of the administrator-general's act which provided that if any suit be brought by a creditor 'against the administrator-general, the plaintiff 'shall be liable1 to pay the costs of the suit unless he ..... the boat had been hired out by the owner for plying on the river. the lessee was arrested; and while convicting the accused under section 5 of the opium act for being in possession of some opium, the magistrate directed the confiscation of the boat without even hearing the owner, as in the present case. in revision the high .....

Thimmiah Vs. Rangiah

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant67; AIR1952Mys67; ILR1952KAR167

Venkataramaiya, J. 1. This case presents a striking illustration of the dilatory tactics practised by the Judgment-Debtor to successfully delay and, if possible, also defeat the realisation of the fruits of the decree.1a. The decree execution of which is sought was passed so long back as 6-6-1934. The original Decree-holder, alter one or two infructuous attempts to recover the money passed away. Apparently, his legal representatives having found it difficult to realise the amounts due under the decree assigned it in favour of the appellant. The appellant thereon applied for execution and in the course of the proceedings in Execution Case No. 521 of 41-42 on 26-3-1943 the assignment was recognised. Execution Case No. 238 of 44-45, which was subsequently filed was disposed of on 1-3-1946 in these words:'Steps not taken. Decree-holder absent. No witnesses. The objections of the judgment-debtors are left open to be agitated later. Execution petition dismissed.'1-b. Finally. Execution Case ...

D.M. Revanasiddaiah Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant85; AIR1952Mys85

..... him by competent persons who investigated into the matter he felt completely satisfied that it was quite necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, and he has emphatically denied that he was activated by any other motive or consideration in ..... passed by a court of law or is awaiting, without being on bail, any investigation, inquiry or trial and that the exercise of power under the preventive detention act would in those circumstances be meaningless and improper. another case cited for the petitioner was decided by the assam high court and is reported in 'labaram deka v ..... was free. the action was taken under section 3(2), the government being satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order he should be held in preventive detention. they had grounds to believe that he was associating himself actively .....