Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1962CriLJ560
ORDERMir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. This is a revision against the conviction of two accused who are the petitioners before this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, North Kanara Accused convicted Under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to 4 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Accused 2 is convicted Under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to two months R. I. only.2. The facts leading to this revision are briefly as follows: On 3-1-1957 at Kasarket (N. E.) between 2.30 or 3 P. M. a scuffle took place in a street between the accused and the complainants who are P.Ws. 1 and 2. These two are closely related to each other. That these witnesses were injured there can be no doubt. P.W. 1 seems to have received serious injuries. It is also not denied that accused 2 also has sustained injuries. As per the certificate marked as Exhibit P-30 issued by the Medical Officer of Bonnavar who has been examined as P.W. 4 in the case, the injury on the head of accused 2 above the right ear was a contused one 2'x1/2'x...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant207; AIR1962Mys207; ILR1962KAR150
(1) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of law urged in this appeal are the following: The first plaintiff is the wife of the third defendant. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of the third defendant and the first plaintiff. In the suit, the plaintiffs have claimed maintenance from the third defendant and they have sought a charge on the suit properties for the maintenance that may be decreed in their favour. The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance from the third defendant. That finding is not challenged in this Court. The first appellate Court granted the first plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per year and for plaintiffs 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 200/- each, per year. (2) Sri K. R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, the learned counsel for the appellants contend that the rate at which the maintenance was granted to the plaintiffs is excessive. We do not think that this contention is correct. As found by the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1962CriLJ710
ORDERMir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. An unfortunate incident has resulted in the death of one Neerakallappa at the hands of the accused under a rather tragic circumstance. A certain quarrel took place on 18-6-1960 at about 6 P. M. between the parents of the deceased on one side and the accused's brother namely, Kanchappa on the other. During the course of that quarrel, the deceased Neerakallappa beat Kanchappa with a stick causing him an injury. Kanchappa was admitted into the Government Hospital at Kudligi as an in-patient on 19-6-1960. With the innocent purpose of finding out how Kanchappa was on the next day viz., on 20-6-1960 at about 10 a. m., the accused, the deceased and his father and a few other residents of Chikkakereyaginahalli called on the injured Kanchappa in the ward room of the hospital at Kudligi. There, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, the accused took an axe belonging to one of the visitors viz., one Maliyappa, which had been left outsid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys161
B.M. Kalagate, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was Instituted by the respondent-plaintiff claiming Rs. 71,200/- as damages for the injury sustained by him in a bus accident causes by the negligence of the appellants-defendants. The trust Court awarded him Rs. 35,200/- as damages, and hence this appeal by the defendants.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit (Special Jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 5 of 1954) in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Karwar, against the defendants. The Bombay State Road Transport Corporation is defendant 1, and defendant 2 is its driver.3. It is the plaintiffs case that on 29th March 1954 defendant 1 used the Passenger Bus No. BYL 9436 for carrying passengers from Hubli to Ankola. Defendant 2, the diver, was put on duty to drive the said bus. The plaintiff was one of the passengers in that bus. According to the plaintiff, the bus was not roadworthy even before it left Hubli. Its right front spring was not in proper order and had been dama...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1963)ILLJ638Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the manager of a printing press, complains against the direction made against him under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, for the payment of retrenchment compensation to his quondam employees, the respondents. The respondents contended that they had been retrenched and that the retrenchment compensation payable under S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was claimable as wages under the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner denied the retrenchment and asserted that the respondents were retired from service after they attained the age of superannuation. Functioning under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the District Magistrate Gave the respondents the order they wanted, and the District Court dismissed the petitioner's appeals preferred under S. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The first argument presented is that the applications of the employees were not entertainable under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, since according to the petitioner the only...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys168
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The properties which formed the subject matter of the suit out of which this revision petition arises belonged to one Ramaswamiah who had two wives. He had two daughters by the first wife and one daughter by the second. The first wife of Ramaswamiah pre-deceased her husband and after Ramaswamaiah died his junior wife was in possession of his properties as a limited owner since the daughters of Ramaswamaiah were still living. After his junior widow died, one of the two daughters by the senior wife brought a suit for partition of the properties of Ramaswamiah, and, defendant 1 in that suit was her own full sister and defendant 2 was her half sister. A preliminary decree for partition was made in that partition suit and after the preliminary decree was made the plaintiff died. The question then arose whether the first defendant who was the full sister of the plaintiff was the sole heir and the legal representative of the plaintiff or whether the half sister wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1963CriLJ698
Hegde, J.1.The Appellants who were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1961 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, have come up in appeal to this Court.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows;On 2-3-1961, the villagers of Pamaldini village, in Belgaum District, were celebrating the 'Dhulwed' day (the day following the Holi). It was a day of merriment for the villagers. On that day, the villagers were having a gala time on the river bed. At about 5 P.M. of that day the deceased Basappa, a notorious character in the village, came to the river bed. Very soon thereafter, 'he held out a challenge that if any one gathered there were to jump 8 cubits forward as well as backwards, he would give that person Rs. 5/-. To that, A 1 retorted that he would give him Rs. 5/- if he performed that feat. These challenges and counter-challenges led to an altercation between A-1 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1963CriLJ547
ORDERT.K. Tukol, J.1. This is a petition by accused No. 2 in Special Case No. 5 of 1961 on the file of the Special Judge, Belgaum, in which the present petitioner and one Dattatraya Gangdhar Samant stand charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 162 I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: the present petitioner filed an application on 17-2-1962 in the Court of the Special Judge, Belgaum for grant of pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and treat him as an approver in the case as he was ready and willing to make a full disclosure of the true facts and circumstances relating to the pending prosecution. Dattatreya (Accused No. 1) objected to that application, while the Public Prosecutor expressed his assent on 26-2-1962 to the prayer made by the petitioner. The Special Judge heard the petition on 1-3-1962 and rejected the petition by an order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys245; ILR1963KAR121; (1963)1MysLJ437
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. In this revision petition, the validity of Section 10 of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949 (Madras Act No. IX of 1949) to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act', is questioned on various grounds.2. The material facts are as follows: The petitioner and the respondent were married on 10-6-1954. The petitioner begot two children (twins) by the respondent on 8-5-1955. For sometime after their marriage, it is said that their married life ran on smooth lines. Thereafter differences arose between them. Ultimately the respondent filed O. P. No. 17 of 1961 in the Court of the learned District Munsiff, Puttur, under Sections 8 and 10 of the 'Act' for the dissolution of the marriage. The trial Court by its order dated 4-4-1962 has dissolved the marriage.3. The trial Court did not, and in fact, if the provisions of the 'Act' are valid, could not go into the grounds set out in support of or in opposition to the prayer made in the petition. It proceeded to pass a decree for d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys118
T.K. Tukol, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in H.M. Miscellaneous Case No. 219 of 1958 on an application filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The respondent who is the husband of the appellant, filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that she was refusing to return to his house since the Dasara of 1955, when she left to her parents' house for the holidays. He alleged that his wife had taken jewels worth Rs 1,500/- and had been staying away from him without any sufficient cause, at the instigation of her mother and some others. The appellant resisted this application by her written statement, in which she contended that the petitioner, her husband, was guilty of ill-treatment and had driven her out of his house after wantonly neglecting to maintain her and her daughter. She further alleged that there was danger to the life of herself and her daughter and tha...
Tag this Judgment!