Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant112; AIR1966Mys112; ILR1965KAR358; (1965)1MysLJ786
ORDER(1) This is a revision petition directed against an order dated 21-1-1965 made by the Munsiff of Navalgund, ordering the restitution to the defendants of the lands, resurvey numbers 199 and 220 of Alagawad village. The relevant facts briefly stated are as follows:--The present petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit before the Munsiff of Navalgund (L.C. Suit No. 244 of 1961), had brought that suit for the possession of the said lands, from the defendants. In that suit, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against the defendants on 28-2-1964. The defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the setting aside of that ex parte decree. While that application was pending (In Misc. Application No. 7 of 1964), the plaintiff executed the ex parte decree and obtained possession of the suit lands. Thereafter, the application which the defendants had filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was allowed and the ex parte decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1966KAR124; (1966)ILLJ816Kant; (1965)2MysLJ215
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order of appointment of respondent 2 as the 'specially empowered authority,' as per the order of the Governor in No. LAW 284 CET. 64, dated 11 January, 1965, and further quash all proceedings of respondent 2 held in pursuance of the above order by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Court deems fit. 2. The material facts of this case are these : In the year 1943 the petitioner was recruited as a District Munsif by the Madras Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he was serving in the Judicial Department of the then Madras State. He was promoted as a Subordinate Judge in the year 1954. At the time of the reorganization of the State on 1 November, 1956 he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. In this State the post of a Subordinate Judge has been equated to that of a civil Judge. From the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1966CriLJ483
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. In the village of Katabali in the District of Belgaum, there were four (sic) brothers and two sisters who lived either in different parts of the same house or in different houses. Shettappa. Yellappa and Erappa were the three brothers; Satyavva and Lakkavva were the two sisters.2. In the same village, there lived two brothers accused 1 and 4. There were two other brothers accused 2 and 3. Accused 1 and 4 were the cousins of accused 2 and 3. They were living in separate houses very near one another. 13. Shettappa, Yellappa and Erappa belong to the first mentioned family and the four accused belong to the second. The four accused were charged before the Court of Session with more than one offence, Shettappa and Yellappa were killed, as the prosecution evidence discloses, in the night of August 3, 1963 in their village and in respect of those murders, the four accused were tried before the Court of Session not only in respect of those murders but also in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1966CriLJ921
A.R. Somanath Iyer, J.1. Johra Bee, a young woman, thirty years of age, and her husband Mohammed Sadiq who was five years older than his wife, were both residents or the village of Muttangi in the District of Gulbarga. According to the evidence of P.W. 1, a Police constable attached to the Police station in Chincholi, the dead body of Mohammed Sadiq was found at 2 A.M. in the night of 4.3.1964 inside a waiting room attached to the bus stand in Chincholi P.W. 1 was then in the company of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 who were assisting P.W. 1 on his beats since there was a scare in Chincholi caused by thefts.2. The dead body of Mohammed Sadiq was subjected to post-mortem examination by P.W. 10, a Medical Officer of Chincholi on 6.3.1964. He observed on the body one incised wound on the right parietal region, a lacerated wound on the back of the skull and on dissection he found a horizontal fracture of the occipital bone besides hemorrhage in the right cerebral region and the back of the brain. He wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant346; AIR1966Mys346; (1966)2MysLJ378
1. On May 11, 1961, at about 5.25 P.M. on a road in Mangalore known as the Kankanady Road, Sylvester Machado, a little boy aged 8 years who was attempting to cross the road was caught underneath the wheels of a lorry and killed. That lorry belonged to defendant 1 and was driven by defendant 2. The two parents of Sylvester instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mangalore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7705 as damages from defendants 1 and 2 and also from defendant 3, an insurer, with whom defendant 1 had insured his motor vehicle against third party risks. The Subordinate Judge awarded to plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation and from that decree the insurer appeals.(2) The appellant complaints that no sum in excess of Rs. 1,000 could have been awarded as damages to the plaintiffs and Mr. Anantharamaiah appearing for the appellant contends that the sum of Rs. 6000 awarded is far too excessive, and that, the Subordinate Judge determined the compensation by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Mys79; 1967CriLJ635; ILR1966KAR961; (1966)1MysLJ618
ORDER1. This is a reference made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur at the instance of the applicant accused Krishnacharya Appacharya Jahagirdar recommending that the conviction of the said applicant by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indi-Sindgi, in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1965 be set aside.2. The original allegation against him was that while he was driving the State Transport bus No. MYF 4039 on 22-1-1965 at about 8-35 P. M., on the Hippargi Talikot Road, the bus did not have either the rear lamp burning or the destination board properly illuminated and that the applicant (driver) did not permit a police jeep No. MYJ 19 to overtake it as he should have. On these allegations, three accusations were made against him viz., contravention of Rule 181(1)(c)(i) and Rule 181(4) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Magistrate acquitted him of the third accusation, viz., failure to permit the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys231; 1966CriLJ1024; (1966)1MysLJ433
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State for transfer of Sessions Cases 43/8/63 and 1/8/64 from the file of the court of Session Raichur, to any other Sessions Court. These two sessions cases are said to be in the nature of a case and a counter-case and were therefore being posted together with a certain interval. The circumstances leading to the filing of this transfer petition relate however only to what happened at the trial of Sessions Case No. 43/8/63.(2) Although what may be called pleadings in this case have been long and argumentative, the facts which are really germane to the disposal of this petition and the controversies relating thereto fall within very small compass. A decision on the truth or otherwise of those facts and their relevancy to the prayer or legal value from the point of view of Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will conclude this petition one way or the other. I do not therefore propose to deal w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant89; AIR1968Mys89
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) These two Writ Petitions arise out of proceedings commenced under the Customs Act, 1962 (Central Act 52 of 1962).(2) On February 21, 1963, a Central Excise Officer seized from the two petitions 49 pieces of gold at the H. A. L. Airport on their arrival from Bombay to Bangalore. he seized from Ganeshmul Chunnilal Gandhi who is the petitioner in W. P. 58 of 1965, 34 pieces weighing 3.772 Kgs. and from Manikchand who is the petitioner in W. P. 59 of 1964, 15 pieces of gold weighing 3.863 Kgs. This seizure we made under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act which will be referred to as 'The Act' and it is stated that the seizure was made as there was reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Act.(3) Under Section 110(2) the goods seized under sub-section (1) of that section should be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized if no notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 was issued to him within six months of the seizure of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant111; AIR1968Mys111; ILR1967KAR188; (1967)1MysLJ35
(1) This appeal under Section 175 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, hereinafter called the Act, raises a question of some nicety on which there is no precedent of this court or of the Supreme Court it arises in this way:--(2) The appellant is the wife of the respondent and they will be referred to as the wife and the husband respectively. The husband having neglected to support the wife, the latter sued for maintenance and obtained a decree directing payment of periodical maintenance at Rs. 15 a month. From his subsequent conduct, it appears that the husband was not disposed to comply with the decree, though he was earning and had the means to support the wife. When the wife sought to execute the decree by arrest and detention in Civil Prison, the husband contended that he had no means to pay which contention, however, was rejected by the Civil Judge, Bangalore. in R A 173/56. Thereupon, the husband filed a petition for adjudging him as insolvent alleging that he was indebted to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1967]66ITR212(KAR); [1967]66ITR212(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The 2nd petitioner, the Madras Bangalore Transport Company, is a firm of four partners, P. V. S. Mani, C. Munireddy, C. Venkatareddy and J. Ramakrishnaiah. Of these, C. Venkatareddy is the 1st petitioner. 2. The firm has its principal place of business at Nos. 36-37, Second Line Beach, Madras City, and is an assessee to income-tax the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VIII, Madras. The firm carries on extensive business as a road transport operator and common carrier with over 200 offices situated in various parts of the country including the Mysore State. One of its branch offices is at No. 34, Infantry Road, Bangalore, and another at No. 14, Second Main Road, Taragupet, Bangalore. Two out of the partners are residents of Banglore. C. Munireddy resides at Nanjappa Road, Shantinagar; Venkatareddy, the 1st petitioner, resides at No. 20(1), Sri M. N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore. The partners also are assessees to income-tax in their i...
Tag this Judgment!