Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant65; AIR1959Mys65; 1959CriLJ347; (1958)36MysLJ744
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. This revision petition raises an intricate point regarding the interpretation and effect Of Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced for the first time by the amending Act XXVI of 1955. There is only one reported decision of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court dealing with this Section and that is found reported in C.B.L. Bhatnagar v. The State, : AIR1958Bom196 . The observations made in that judgment are relied upon by both sides in support of their respective contentions, although the decision itself does not finally conclude the controversy now before me for decision.2. The undisputed facts may be stated briefly. In the wake of the reorganization of States in 1956 there were some disturbances in Belgaum in consequence of which orders were issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. Breaches of these orders were committed or attempt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant136; AIR1959Mys136; 1959CriLJ622; (1958)36MysLJ936
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, of an offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 read with Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order 1948 made under the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The conviction and the sentence have been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge, Civil Station Bangalore. Hence this revision petition. 2. Only a question of law has been argued in this revision and that is whether the conviction of the petitioner is barred under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by reason of his having been acquitted under Section 494 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a prior case, C. C. No. 805 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore. 3. There is no dispute regarding the material facts, which may be stated briefly. 4. The petitioner is a Pakistani national. He ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant177; AIR1959Mys177; 1959CriLJ878; ILR1958KAR661; (1958)36MysLJ892
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 9-4-1958 passed by the District Magistrate, Belgawn, in Criminal Revision Application No. D.C./MGA--4329, setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belgaum City dated 30-10-1957 in Criminal Mis. Case No. 4 of 1956. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it is necessary to mention the facts of the case which may be briefly stated as follows:2. The houses of the parties are adjacent to each other. It is stated that there are four windows on the second floor and two windows on the third floor of the petitioner's house. The house of the respondents, which is adjacent to the western wall of the petitioner's house, has a low roof and the windows of the petitioner's house are above its level. The petitioner made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belgaum City under Section 147 Cr. P. C. complaining that the Respondents wrongfully and unauthorized obstructed the use ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant129; AIR1959Mys129; ILR1958KAR677; (1958)36MysLJ898
M. Ahmed Ali Khan J. 1. This is an appeal filed by defendant I against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Belgaum, dated 31st December 1951 in O. S. No. 47 of 1950 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit which was for declaration that the decisions given by the Revenue Courts in respect of the suit lands were ultra vires, without jurisdiction void and illegal and that the defendants have no right to increase the rent or to seize possession of the suit lands granted hy the ancestors nf defendant 1 to the ancestors of plaintiffs, and also for the recovery of the amount spent over improving the lands, etc., and for mesne profits. 2. The subject matter of this litigation relates to Survey Nos. 162 and 163 situated at Nasalapur in Raibagh Mahal of former Kolhapur State. The old Survey Number of S. Nos. 162 and 163 was 143. The old S. No. 143 belongs to the family of defendant 1. These suit lands are Beshgat Watan Lands. The plaintiffs' case was that the grandfather of defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant77; AIR1960Mys77
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The Petitioner before us was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessing year 1948-49. On 27th November 1956 he was served with a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. In the said notice it was stated that whereas the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the income of the Petitioner assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31st March 1949 has escaped assessment, he is required to deliver within 35 days of the receipt of this notice a return in the attached form of his total income and world income assessable for the year ending 31st March 1949.The Petitioner appeared before the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the said notice and challenged the right of the Income-tax Officer to proceed under the said section. The main contention of the Petitioner before the authority concerned was that the notice was given beyond the period mentioned in Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that contention. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant102; AIR1959Mys102; ILR1958KAR724; (1958)36MysLJ868
K. S. Hegde, J. 1. These arc connected appeals. They arise out of the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 59 of 1949-50.2. Appellants in Regular Appeal No. 154 of 1952-53 are defendants 1 to 7 in the suit, The plaintiff is the appellant in the connected Regular Appeal No. 196 of 1952-53. The suit in question was instituted on the foot of two mortgage deeds dated 12-1-1937 and 14-6-1937, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in conjunction with their deceased brother Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Sait. The principal sum secured, under the first mortgage is Rs. 20,000/-and under the second mortgage is Rs. 24.000/-.A sum of Rs. 51,200/- was claimed with future interest under the first mortgage marked as Exhibit1 and a further sum of Rs. 60,200/- with future interest was claimed under the second mortgage marked as Exhibit II. The defendants admitted the execution of the suit mortgages but they pleaded that these deeds were executed under fraud, coercion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1958KAR712; [1960]38ITR109(KAR); [1960]38ITR109(Karn)
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The petitioner before us was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1948-49. On November 27, 1956, he was served with a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. In the said notice it was stated that whereas the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the income of the petitioner assessable to income-tax for the year ending March 31, 1949, has escaped assessment, he is required to deliver within 35 days of the receipt of this notice a return in the attached form of his total income and world income assessable for the year ending March 31, 1949. The petitioner appeared before the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the said notice and challenged the right of the income-tax Officer to proceed under the said section. The main contention of the petitioner before the authority concerned was that the notice was given beyond the period mentioned in section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that contention. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant227; AIR1959Mys227; ILR1958KAR853
Mir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff Basanna against defendant Appa Rao who is the first respondent and Somanna who is respondent 2. One Shivabai widow of Bhimanna was impleaded in the suit as second defendant. But as she died, her name was struck off in the trial Court itself. Plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Munsiff, Gulbarga in O. S. No. 338/1 of 1952. He based his suit for possession of lands survey Nos. 94, 96, 97 and 100 to the extent of half towards the north, situated in Balgonda village, Gulbarga Taluk, and survey Nos. 10 and 37 to the extent of one-third towards the south of the same village. He also prayed for a declaration of shikmi in respect of all the lands.2. The plaintiff in the former suit alleged that he is the adopted son of one Bhimanna who was the original owner of the suit properties; that after adoption, he lived with the said Bhimanna and as such, as heir of Bhimanna, he was in possession of the suit properti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant1; AIR1960Mys1; ILR1959KAR57
Malimath, J. (1) This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. But it raises a very important point of law as to whether a decree passed by a foreign court prior to the Constitution is executable in another State after the Constitution by which both the courts have now become parts of the Indian Union. The decree in question was passed on 13-1-1950 by the High Court of Calcutta in its Original Jurisdiction the defendant who was then a resident of Kolar in the Mysore State remaining ex parte. On 30-9-53 the decree was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Kolar. On 25-1-54, an execution petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kolar, the same having been registered as Ex. 2 of 1954.The judgment-debtor raised several contentions, one of them being that inasmuch he declined to submit himself to the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, the judgment of that court being one of a foreign court, was not valid and binding on him. It was thus contended t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant139; AIR1959Mys139
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by a tenant against whom an application had been made by a person who claimed to be his landlord for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in regard to arrears of rent payable by him. On 6-10-1956, an order was made in those proceedings ex parte, ordering the eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereupon, made an application on October 15, 1956, for getting that ex parte order set aside. The allegation that he made was that on the date on which the ex parte order was made against him he was present in Court although his advocate could not be present on account of his illness as a result of which he was being treated on that date in a private nursing home. According to him, when the case was called earlier in the day, although the tenant appeared before the Court, the-landlord did not. The case was accordingly kept by and was never called although he was waiting in the verandah of the court-hall till 5 p. m. ...
Tag this Judgment!