Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant326; AIR1960Mys326; ILR1959KAR688
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. (1) The petitioner in these three petitions is the Indian Sugar and Refineries Ltd., Hospet carrying on business of Sugar Manufacturing Factory. These petitions raise the same questions and they can be conveniently taken up together. They relate to three Notifications dated 9-4-1956, 15-10-1957, and 12th/13th February 1958 issued by the Government purporting to act under S. 14(1) of the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949, whereby cess was imposed on the petitioner for the crushing season 1956-56, 56-57 and 57-58 respectively.(2) The main questions raised in these petitions are (a) whether or not under S. 14(1) of the said Act the Government has power to issue notification imposing a cess on Sugarcane brought and crushed in petitioner's factory for a period prior to the date of the said notifications, and (b) whether or not the notifications issued in this case under the said section impose cess for the period to the dates of such notifications. Before mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1961]12STC731(Kar)
Narayana Pai, J.1. All these appeals have been heard together for the reason that they involve certain common questions. They are also directed against three judgments of the learned District Judge of Bellary, all delivered on the 30th day of November, 1953, in three batches of cases tried or heard together by him. Two were batches of Original Suits transferred from the Courts of the Subordinate Judge and the District Munsiff, Bellary, and tried together by the learned District Judge. The third batch is of appeals arising out of the Original Suits tried by the District Munsiff's Court and the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bellary. The discussion contained in the three judgments of the learned District Judge of Bellary under appeal on the questions of law said to arise in all the matters heard by him is more or less on identical terms. 2. Regular Appeals Nos. 458 of 1954 and 107, 108, 109 and 110 of 1955 are respectively by the plaintiffs in Original Suits Nos. 32, 31, 35, 36, and 37 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant7; AIR1961Mys7; 1961CriLJ106
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-6-1958 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Kanara in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1958. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the petitioners for an offence under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947 read with Notification No. 12 (11)(f) 1-48 dated 25-8-1948 (as amended), but acquitted them of the offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act but confirmed the composite sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,111/- in respect of the first petitioner and a fine of Rs. 111/- in respect of the other petitioners, passed on each of them by the District Magistrate, South Kanara, in Criminal Case No. 87 of 1957.2. A foreign vessel M. L. Anwar captained by the first petitioner Issa Yakub Bichara entered the Mangalore Port on 13-10-1957 from Muskat with the cargo of 341 bundles of wet dates. The first petitioner filed the entry a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant190; AIR1960Mys190
ORDER(1) The Petitioner and Respondent who were running a business in partnership referred the dispute which arose between them in regard to the dissolution of the firm to five arbitrators for arbitration. The latter made an award according to which Respondent was to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 7200/- in two instalments and also an additional amount of Rs. 300/- in two instalments and also an additional amount of Rs. 300/-. The award signed by the arbitrators was given to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the award. The Petitioner thereupon filed a petition before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gokak, purporting to be under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for a judgment and decree in accordance with the award.In that petition, he made an explicit statement to the effect that he was enforcing the award in his individual capacity and that he was not filing it as the agent of the arbitrators. The Respondent raised v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant29; AIR1961Mys29; ILR1960KAR151
Hegde, J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit i.e., Original Suit No. 52 of 1950-51 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of the trial Court. There is no need to repeat the same. We shall briefly state the facts relevant for the decision of the points at controversy in this Court.2. The first defendant is the owner of the 'Moviland Theatre' (suit property). He leased out the same on 29-12-1941 as per Exhibit L (which is also marked as Exhibit IX). For the purpose of this case we may take it that the second defendant in this suit is the lessee thereunder. The lease was for a period of five years and in the ordinary course, it was to expire at the end of February 1947. As per Exhibit IV dated 2-5-1946, the first defendant demanded possession of the leased property on the termination of the lease.But the second defendant as per Exhibit V sought a renewal of the lease, as per Clause 14 i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant69; AIR1961Mys69; 1961CriLJ398
ORDER1. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar has made this reference in regard to proceedings in six criminal cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third Court Cadag. The reference was made in consequence of revision petitions filed in each of the cases by the same person, Ranganagowda, who was arrayed as an accused in each one of the cases. The circumstances leading to the revision petitions are narrated in the order of the learned Judge resulting in the reference. In brief, it may he stated that in the course of investigation of a complaint of theft, the house of Ranganagowda was searched on 15-7-1952 and a large number of articles were seized. On the basis of the identification of articles by various persons who had laid complaints before the Police in respect of thefts alleged to have taken place from 25-6-1949 onwards the Cadag Town Police placed ten charge-sheets against Ranganagowda and others. While Ranganagowda figured in each one of the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant209; AIR1960Mys209; ILR1960KAR341
ORDER(1) In this revision petition the true scope of some of the provisions in the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955(which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') comes up for consideration.(2) The petitioner is the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 72/1958 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of South Karana, Mangalore. He sued the defendant who is his tenant, for a sum of Rs. 790.52 NP, as being the arrears of rent for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, on the basis of a challenged lease deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 26-9-1950. The defendant denied the genuineness of the lease deed produced. He alleged that the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper and the same must have been used to get up the lease deed in question. He further pleaded that the claim made in the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, in view of the decision given by the Special Assistant Commissioner in O. P. No. 386/58...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant247; AIR1961Mys247
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were Excise Assistant Inspectors in the service of the new State of Mysore were promoted as Excise Inspectors in December, 1958. The petitioner who is an Excise Assistant Inspector of that State seeks their removal by quo-warrantor from their posts and his own appointment by mandamus to one of them. He applies for a further direction that, after his appointment in that way, he should be placed, in the list of seniority, above respondent 5, who, although appointed as Excise Inspector in December, 1957, is, according to him, is junior in the service of the State.2. The dates on which these four persons entered the service of the former State of Mysore and those on which they were promoted as Excise Assistant Inspectors arc set out in the following tabular statement:--NameRank inthe provisional Inter-State Seniority list.Date of employment. Date ofpromotion as Excise Assistant InspectorRudraradhya(Petitioner)1213-7-194514-9-1949Chikkarangiah(Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys81; ILR1960KAR766
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 14-11-1959 by the Election Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Election Petition No. 258 of 1957 on its file. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa as a candidate on behalf of the Lok Sevak Sangha and Shankaragouda Basan Gouda as a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party, contested for a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yelburga Constituency of Raichur District, Mysore State, in the last general election of 1957. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa having polled only 14,500 votes, Shankargouda Basan Gouda was declared duly elected, he having polled 20,541 votes.Thereupon, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act alleging that because of the various corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his agent and persons interested in the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant277; AIR1960Mys277; ILR1960KAR863
(1) This is an execution appeal in which the only question involved is one of limitation. The appellant in this appeal was a person against whom a money decree had been made in a suit brought by the respondent. An execution application for the recovery of that amount was application for the recovery of that amount was presented by the respondent-decree-holder on July 18, 1953. But, in that application, the decree holder prayed for the execution of the decree against the appellant's son who was described as judgment-debtor. The decree-holder appears to have been under the impression that the appellant was dead and that the execution had, therefore, to be taken against his son.(2) It appears to have been subsequently discovered by the decree-holder that the appellant was really alive and that he had committed a mistake in asking for execution to proceed against his son. He, therefore, made an application on June 16, 1954, for permission to amend his execution application, by substituting...
Tag this Judgment!