Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant188; AIR1961Mys188
ORDER1. An interesting question of jurisdictions arises in this civil revision petition in this way. The plaintiff who is the respondent in this civil revision petition, brought a suit in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages from his father-in-law who is the petitioner in this revision petition. The plaintiffs case was that ho was subjected to a malicious prosecution by the defendant in the Court of the 19th Presidency Magistrate, Bombay which ended in bis acquittal. On September 25, 1956, according to the defendant's case, a defamatory communication was addressed by the plaintiff to his wife which however was enclosed in an envelope addressed to a friend of the plaintiff's wife. This Communication was made the subject matter of the prosecution for defamation by the defendant against the plaintiff and the summons in that criminal case which was commenced in the Bombay Court was served on the plaintiff in Bangalore on De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant238; AIR1961Mys238; ILR1961KAR797
ORDER1. In O.S. No. 238 of 1948-49, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the petitioners in this revision petition were some of the defendants. The respondent was the plaintiff. That was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of a house and for possession thereof to him. His suit was dismissed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, but, in the appeal preferred by him to the District Judge, he obtained the decree which he wanted. In Second Appeal No. 497 of 1953, this Court set aside the decree made by the District Judge, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. But, during the interregnum between the date of the decree made by the District Judge and that of this Court, the plaintiff executed his decree and secured possession of the house. After the second appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by this Court the Petitioners made an application for restitution, under the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1961CriLJ253
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellant Shyama Rao was convicted under Section 302, I, P. G. for the murder of his father Ghairu on the morning of 13-1-1959 at Khemanna's land, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1959 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by that order, he has come up in appeal to this Court.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that there was enmity between the appellant and his father Khairu; the appellant was the eldest son of deceased Bhairu, who had two other sons named Devappa and Parashuram; about three years prior to the 00-currence there was a partition in the family of deceased Bhairu; thereafter, the appellant and Devappa lived together in a separate house while the deceased and his youngest son Parashuram lived together in another house; Devappa died several months before the occurrence; thereafter, his wife P. W. 3 Gangubai was unable to live with the appellant due to constant quarrels between the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant202; AIR1961Mys202
ORDER1. The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, has submitted his report in pursuance of this Court's order that an enquiry be made into the pauperism of the Petitioner. He is of the opinion that the Petitioner is without sufficient means to pay the prescribed fee and that her case of pauperism is true.2. When after the receipt of the report the matter came up before this Court the question arose for consideration whether all that this Court had to do was to transmit the report of the Court below to the Supreme Court or to arrive at its own conclusion on the question of pauperism with the aid of the report submitted by the Court below forward that opinion to the Supreme Court While on the one hand it was urged that what was contemplated by Rule 4 of Order XIV of the Supreme Court Rules was that either the High Court could itself inquire into the pauperism of the Petitioner or in the alternative cause an enquiry to be made by a subordinate Court and that there was nothing in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant112; AIR1962Mys112
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The eleven petitioners before us were Senior Assistants, in the Secretariat of the State of Bombay. Under the provisional of the States Reorganization Act, they were allotted to serve in the new State of Mysore. The provisional allotment was made at the time of the Leo reorganization, and we have been told that the final allotment under sub-section (3)of section 115 of the States Reorganization Act was made in the year 1960.(2) On November 18, 1957, the Government of the new State of Mysore published what is described as a provisional Inter-State Seniority List of the First Division Clerks in the Mysore Government Secretariat. Persons who were dissatisfied with their positions in the said list. 'on grounds connected with the establishment of equivalence reorganization' were directed that submit their objections to the Under - Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, with in thirty days from the date of the publication of the List.(3) The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant82; AIR1962Mys82
Hedge, J. (1) An interesting question of law which does not appear to be covered by any decision of the supreme Court or this Court arises for decision in this case. (2) The appellant was charged for the murder of his mistress Shiddawwa. It is said that due to some petty quarrel the appellant cut her on here back on the night of 7-2-1959 with a sickle and about a month thereafter she died. The injured was admitted to the hospital on 8-2-1959 but, we are told that she was discharged from hospital as desired by her relations on 5-3-1959 and that she died on 5-3-1959. Post-mortem examination of her dead body very soon after her death.(3) The prosecution produced in support of its case (1) the evidence of the alleged eye-witness and (2) the dying declaration of the deceased marked as Ex. 5 (b). So far as the evidence of the occurrence witness is concerned all of them without exception have turned hostile to the prosecution and the learned Government Pleader conceded that without the assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1962CriLJ51
1. We do not think that the material on record justifies the conviction of the appellants. The trial Court, i.e., the Court of Session Belgaum in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1959 convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for Me. It also convicted them under Section 148 I.P.C. and for that offence sentenced each one of them to suffer 18 months R.I.In that court there were as many as 5 accused; all of them were charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 as well as under Section 148 I.P.C. But A-3 to A-5 were acquitted on the ground that their presence at the time of the, occurrence was not satisfactorily established. Curiously enough, the learned Sessions Judge thought that in spite of the acquittal of those accused, he could still convict the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 as well as under Section 148 I.P.C. as in his view, for which there is no basis, five persons took part in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Mys198; 1961CriLJ509
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from a case in which the petitioners are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 163 and 420, I. P. C. The case is being tried by a Special. Judge under Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952; under Section 8 cf that Act, the procedure prescribed being that for the trial of warrant cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage reached in the, case is that charges have been framed against the accused and the prosecution is examining its witnesses.The accused have not yet entered on their defence. The petitioners (Accused) applied to the Court to summon a witness for the production of certain documents. The learned Judge rejected the application taking the view that the accused were not entitled to make the application until they had entered on their defence.2. According to the learned Judge Section 251-A, which now regulates the procedure for warrant cases, accords the accused such a right only when that stage is reached an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant108; AIR1962Mys108
Somanth Iyer, J. (1) By a Notification made by the Government on November 25, 1959 under the provisions of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, what the Government thought was an industrial dispute, was referred by it to the Industrial Tribunal over which Mr. D. H . Chandrasekharajah was then presiding. The term of office of Mr. Chandrasekharajah expired on July 4, 1960, according to the petitioners. By a Notification issued under S. 7-A of the Act, Mr. Malimath , a retired Judge of this Court was appointed to preside over that Tribunal. The hearing of the reference which was pending before Mr. Chandrasekharaijah was continued by Mr. Malimath. (2) On behalf of the ten employers who constituted the second party in that reference, a request was made that certain issues, which according to the petitioner were issue of law, should in the first instance, he decided. One Mr. Hanumantiah who is a Legal Practitioner at Tumkur, was permitted with the consent of the employees to repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1962)IILLJ516Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. By a notification made by the Government on 25 November 1959, under the provisions of S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, what the Government thought was an industrial dispute, was referred by it to this industrial tribunal over which Mr. D. H. Chandrasekharayya was then presiding. The terms of office of Mr. Chandrasekharayya expired on 4 July, 1960, according to the petitioners. By a notification issued under S. 7A of the Act, Mr. Malimath, a retired Judge of this Court, was appointed to preside over that tribunal. The hearing of the reference which was pending before Mr. Chandrasekharayya was continued by Mr. Malimath. 2. On behalf of the ten employers who constituted the second party in that reference, a request was made that certain issues, which according to the petitioners were issues of law, should, in the first instance, be decided. One Mr. Hanumanthayya who is a legal practitioner at Tumkur, was permitted with the consent of the employees of represe...
Tag this Judgment!