Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant42; AIR1952Mys42
Venkataramaiya, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the 1st and 2nd accused respectively against their convictions in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 6 of 1950-51. Accused 1 was charged with committing offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, for having received on the night of 13th October 1948 from one Sanjivappa Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification in order to show favour to him in four cases pending before him (1st Accused) as House Rent Controller. The 2nd accused was charged with the abetment of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty and sentenced Accused 1 to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the said offences with a direction that the sentences do run concurrently. As regards the 2nd accused he ordered under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal procedure that he should be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant66; AIR1953Mys66; ILR1952KAR230
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for breach of contract. The contract is in writing marked Ex. A dated 2-10-1945 and signed by the parties. The terms of the contract arc expressed thus :'Quality:- Ground-nut oil. Quantity- 1001 one thousand and one maunds only. Rate 8-8-0 Rupees per maund of 23 Ibs. Ex. Mills. Time of delivery -- end of October 1945 Option - 'Nil. Terms of advance : 2000. Terms of payment : cash against delivery. 2. The receipt of Rs. 2,0007- as advance from the respondent is admitted and that the quantity supplied is only 167 maunds is not disputed. There is difference between the parties as to who is responsible for the rest of the stipulated quantity not being supplied, each party imputing default to the other. After exchange of notices the suit relating to this appeal was filed on 31-3-1948 for recovery of Rs. 107057- made up of Rs. 2000/- paid as advance, Rs. 375/- cost of barrels left with the defendant and Rs. 83307-as damages. Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant80; AIR1952Mys80; ILR1952KAR344
ORDER1. The plaintiff has brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, in effect for a declaration that he is entitled to enforce against defendant 1 and defendant 2 (who is said to have purchased the property from defendant 1 'pendente lite' certain restrictive covenants fixed by the Bangalore City Municipality at the time of ' sale by them of the vacant sites in the area in question in Gandhlnagar as to leaving of certain open spaces in their own site between his own and the defendants' property as well as in front of their own building and the nature of the building to be constructed on their own site; and for a permanent injunction directing the defendants to remove certain structures which the latter had constructed on their own site as being contrary to or in breach of those restrictive covenants.The plaintiff valued the reliefs for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fee at Rs. 3080 under Section 4(iv) (c) of the proviso to Mysore Court-fees Act. He valued at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant62; AIR1953Mys62
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is against an order of remand matte by the Subordinate Judge of Bangalore in R. A. 129 of 48-49 bv which he set aside the order of the First Munsiff of Bangalore dismissing an application I. A. II in Ex. Case No. 195 of 48-49. The facts relating to this application are as follows:2. The appellant, the landord, applied to the House Rent Controller, Bangalore and obtained an order of eviction against the respondent, the tenant, in H. R. C. Case No. 820 of 45-46 on 22-11-46. That order was finally affirmed by the Government by an order dated 20-10-47. Thereafter the appellant applied for the execution of that order and in Ex. Case 195 of 48-49 on the file of the First Munsiff of Bangalore, he was duly put in possession of the premises concerned in this case on 31-10-1948. The respondent then filed his present application I. A. II on 8-11-48 under Ss. 47 and 151, C. P. C. for restitution or redelivery back to him o the premises on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant127; AIR1952Mys127
1. The Hassan Co-operative Society Ltd., who is the appellant in this second appeal, obtained an award for some monies due to it in the Court of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Hassan and after getting the necessary certificate on 26-10-1943 sought execution of it in the Court of the Munsiff of Hassan in Ex. Case No. 605 of 43-44. The decree was partly satisfied and the execution was dismissed on 2-6-44. The decree-holder then filed the present application, Ex. No. 1035 of 46-47 and applied for arrest of judgment-debtor 2 who pleaded that the execution application was. barred by limitation. The Munsiff rejected that plea. On appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge at Hassan upheld that plea and dismissed the execution application. Hence this second appeal.2. As the matter involved an important question of limitation which might affect the execution of a large number of awards passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and his assistants, the Advocate-Genera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant123; AIR1953Mys123; ILR1953KAR123
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act. The controversy is between parents, who are both Hindus, about the guardianship of the person and property of their only daughter. The child was born in February 1942, had the benefit of the care and company of both father and mother till 31-5-1944 and is separated from the mother since then, as she left the husband's house on that day and renewal of association between her and her husband has not been possible so far. After the mother's departure, the child was brought up for some time by the father's mother in Bangalore and on the death of the grand-mother in December 1944, by a relation of the father, at Madras. The father married a second wife in June 1946 and the child has been living with the father from the time the second wife joined him.2. The mother attempted at first to obtain custody of the child by means of an application for writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court at Madras. The application was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant147; AIR1953Mys147
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is a regrettable case in which the dispute is between husband and wife, about the amount of maintenance and certain articles dammed by her. The parties are Hindus belonging to respectable families of the same community. They were married in 1938 at Salem where the plaintiff's father waspractising as a Vakil. The plaintiff joined the defendant in 1940 after the consummation ceremony at Bangalore by which time her father had died and continued to be with him till the end Of May 1944, except during intervals of absence on account of her confinement in her mother's place and occasional visits. Barring differences of the usual type between an individualistic daughter-in-law and an imperious mother-in-law in a Hindu home, the family consisting of plaintiff, her husband, a child and mother-in-law normally and the father-in-law too, off and on, seems to have got on well enough, on the whole, without any apparent discomfort or discord.The incident which broke up or le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant35; AIR1954Mys35
1. The plaintiff's suit for damages by way of loss of rent occasioned to him by the defendants who were in unlawful possession of the plaint schedule property which he had purchased at a Revenue sale was decreed partially by the Second Munsiff, Mysore. On appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, dismissed the suit and the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.2. The suit was originally brought against two defendants who were brothers of one H.K. Sivanna who is now doad. The suit property was sold by the Revenue authorities for recovery of the balance of the House Building Advance which had been borrowed to put up the suit house by the deceased Sivanna who was an employee in the Mysore Government Electrical Department. After purchasing the property the plaintiff applied for delivery of possession but he was prevented from taking possession on account of obstruction caused by the defendants, who had also field a suit for declaration of their rights and for permanent injunction a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant80; AIR1953Mys80
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the City Magistrate, Bangalore.2. The accused was a registered retail dealer in kerosene oil with his shops in New Tharagupet, Bangalore City. He was prosecuted for selling two tins of kerosene oil containing 8 gallons to one Channaveerappa, P.W. 8, for Rs. 19/- which was in excess of the price fixed and notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. In that connection he was also charged for having sold the kerosene oil to P.W. 8 who did not hold a ration card) having failed to issue him a receipt in respect of the same, for failing to maintain a daily sales account as he was required to do in respect of the sales of kerosene and for not exhibiting in his shop premises a statement required of him showing the stock, selling price and other particulars of kero...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant138; AIR1954Mys138
1. The appellant filed a suit for damages against 1st respondent, who is the owner of a bus, and respondent 2, who is its driver, on the ground of injuries caused to his left-arm and left finger while he was travelling in their bus, and it is said the bus swerved and passed close to the side of a tree causing the aforesaid injuries to the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff and his brother-in-law P.W. 4, discloses that the bus took a turn from the road in trying to pass two bullock carte which were going in front and that the accident occurred at that time. The evidence of the disinterested witness, D.W. 1, who was sitting in the front seat of the bus by the side of the driver, discloses that one of the bullock carts turned across the road leaving no space for the bus to move, with the result that the driver took a turn to a side, and finding a tree in front, he turned to the left. When he was thus taking the bus back to the road, after avoiding the cart one of the sides of the bu...
Tag this Judgment!