Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant6; AIR1958Mys6
Mallappa, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 4. Sub-section 1 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Shi-moga, in C. Section No. 23 of 52-53 holding that the first defendant in that suit is not an agriculturist under the Agriculturists Relief Act. 2. It was urged in this case as is usual to urge in cases of this Kind that the revisional powers of this Court under Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act to examine the evidence and to interfere with the finding of the Courts below on the question of fact concerning status are greater than the revisiona1 powers usually exercised in small cause cases. The case relied on is the decision of Sreenivasa Rao J., reported in In re. Krishna Murthy, 15 Mys LJ 334 (A). Before considering that decision it is useful to compare 3. 4, Sub-section 2of the Mysore Agriculturists Belief Act with Section 10 of the Courts of Small Causes Act. According to Sections 10 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant41; AIR1955Mys41; (1956)34MysLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioner who is common to these petitions has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore in C. C. Nos. 1180 & 1181/53 on his file and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in each case.2. The prosecution was under Section 20, Mysore Sales-tax Act, and related to the default in the payment of sales-tax assessed amounting to Rs. 243-11-3 for the year 50-51 and Rs. 956-6-3 for the year 49-50. A common plea that he is not liable to pay taxes levied was entered into to both these cases. They were tried together as the offences were similar and against the same per-son. Mr. Nanjundaswamy, on behalf of the petitioner, raised rather faintly, an argument that the joint trial is void. I am unable to appreciate the argument since the procedure adopted is neither illegal nor is it shown that any prejudics has been caused to the petitioner thereby.3. It is next contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not afforded adequate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant27; AIR1955Mys27; 1955CriLJ372
1. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 312, I. P. C., for having caused miscarriage on or about 30-11-1952 to a girl Ammayya and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- with a direction that in default of payment she should suffer R. I. for a further term of six months. The girl Ammayya, who was accused 2 in the case, was also convicted of the said offence and her mother and brother who were accused 3 and 4 respectively were found guilty of abetment of the said offence. All the four accused were similarly charged with having committed an offence under Section 315, I. P. C., but have been acquitted of the same on the ground that the intention to prevent a child being born alive or of causing the child to die after its birth by thrusting a stick into the womb of A-2 was not made out. There is no appeal against this acquittal or against the convictions of A-2, A-3 and A-4 so that what has to be considered in this appeal is on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant113; AIR1955Mys113; 1955CriLJ1269
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners-accused 1 and 2 against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Chickmagalur in Cr.R.P. 8 of 1954, setting aside the order of the. learned Special Second Class Magistrate, Tarikere in C. C. 25/54 holding that sanction of Government to prosecute these petitioners was necessary under Section 197, Cr. P. C.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly these:3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused 1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant in C. C. 25/54 on the file of the Special Second Class Magistrate, Tarikere. The complainant is a hotel-keeper at Kadur. The petitioners are President and Vice-president respectively of the Kadur Town Municipal Council. A-3 to A-10 are the employees in the said Municipality. Accused 11 and 12 are the Police Constables working at Kadur. The Respondent-complainant's petition was that on 16-5-1953 the said accused persons trespassed into his hotel and committed theft of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant143; AIR1955Mys143
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in O. S. No. 37/54 on his file holding that the petitioner was liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of his share in the suit schedule properties.2. The present petitioner represented by his guardian Parvathamma filed a suit against the respondents for partition and possession of his 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties valued at Rs. 75,000/- in all. The petitioner alleged in his plaint that he was adopted by Parvathamma to her husband Chandrasekhariah about 2 or 3 months prior to the date of the suit and as such was a member of the joint family with the defendants and was entitled to claim and get his 1/3 share in all the suit schedule properties which were the joint family properties.The petitioner alleged that he was in constructive possession of the suit schedule properties along with the respondents and as such was entitled to pay a fixed court-fee unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant140; AIR1955Mys140
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Shimoga in O.S. No. 22 of 1951-52 on his file holding on issue No. 7 raised in the case that the present Petitioner was not in possession of the suit schedule properties and directing him to pay an additional Court fee of Rs. 800/-.2. The Petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled 1/3 share in all the plaint schedule- properties on the ground that he was it member of the joint family along with defendants 1 to 5 and claimed delivery of possession of his share after division by metes and bounds with mesne profits and costs. He paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 100/- only under Article 11-B, Schedule II, Court Fees Act on the ground that he was in constructive possession of the suit schedule properties, being a member of the joint family.The Respondents alleged in,' their written statement that the Petitioner had wantonly inflated the value of the suit schedule properties with a view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant123; AIR1955Mys123
Padmanabhiah, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 24 of 1949-50 partly decreeing the suit.2. Plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business in machinery in Bangalore. Defendant 1 in the case is the Indian Union, defendant 2 the Government of Mysore, and defendant 3 the General Manager, Mysore State Railway. The case for the plaintiff is that the firm placed two orders, one for the supply of a lathe machine, and another for a drilling machine with Messrs. Halifax Engineering Company, Baroda and Messrs. A. Mill & Company, Lahore, respectively, that the said companies consigned the said goods (the first company under invoice No. 49, and the second under invoice No. 16 for value received), that the goods so consigned have not been delivered t,o the plaintiff, that defendant 3 Railway which are responsible for the carriage and delivery of the goods have f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant138; AIR1955Mys138; 1955CriLJ1611
ORDER1. The question raised in this case is whether the trial of Petitioners for offences alleged by the Respondent in C. C, No, 158/1954 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Bhadravati, is barred by virtue of the proceedings in C. C. No-951/53 in the same Court. In the latter case the Petitioners as well as the Respondent were accused of committing affray, an offence under Section 160, I. P. C., convicted of the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine' of Rs. 20/- each. The Respondent now wants the Petitioners to be dealt with according to law for causing him hurt. Objection was taken to this on the ground that the facts relating to both cases are common and the offences alleged though different are those committed in the course of the same transaction. The contention in the lower Court and repeated here by Sri Gular Sreenivasa Rao on behalf of the accused is that provisions of Section 403, Criminal P. C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India operate as a bar to the case being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1956CriLJ253
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Tumkur Sessions Case No. 3 of 1955, convicting him of offences under Sections 467 and 409, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, under each count, and directing that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused, who was a postman in Kunigal Post Office, was on 28-11-1949 entrusted with a money order for Rs. 20/-, which was received from Bangalore as unpaid to the payee, for payment to the remitter P. W. 9 Ramkrishna at Kunigal, that the accused forged the signature of Krishnaiah (also called Krishnappa) on whose behalf the money order was sent by P. W. 9 and misappropriated it and that he thereby committed offences under Sections...
Tag this Judgment!