Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka prohibition act 1961 section 112 articles seized Sorted by: old Page 2 of about 25,616 results (0.206 seconds)

Dec 14 1954 (HC)

B.K. Nanjundeswara Krishnayya Vs. State of Coorg

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1957Kant93; AIR1957Mys93; (1957)35MysLJ26

..... title laws means the protection of equal laws. it for^ bids class legislation, but docs not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds ot distinction. it does not prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by tbe territory within which it is to operate. it merely requires that all persons ..... keep guns, it is because they are liable to be called upon by the government to do military or police duties. in fact even in other parts of karnataka it will be noticed that there are what is known as service inams lands granted to patels and shan-bhogues which are not liable to assessment. the lands are ..... distinctions which do not furnish any proper basis for the attempted classification. that must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed and can never be made arbitrarily and without any such basis.' in this case it is clear that there are more .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1955 (HC)

Munithayamma and anr. Vs. Muddobalappa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant135; AIR1955Mys135; 1955CriLJ1512

..... on the common law of eng-land but on the provisions of the statutory enactmentin section 499, penal code, that, though strictly speaking,under section 105, evidence act, the burden of provingthat the case falls within the terms of excepn. 9 tosection 499 would normally be upon the person relying onthe exception, in practice the courts ..... it he is called in ques-tion in respect of defamatory statement made by himin the course of his duties as an advocate, courtsought to presume that he acted in good faith andupon instructions and that a magistrate should refuseto take cognizance of a complaint in such a caseagainst an advocate for defamation, unless there issome allegation ..... 10. no doubt, as observed in the unreported decision of this court cited above, there is always a presumption in favour of an advocate of his having acted in good faith and under instructions for defamatory statements uttered or written by him and that no court should take cognizance of a complaint in such a case against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1955 (HC)

M. Khivaraj Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant129; AIR1955Mys129; 1955CriLJ1503

1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields, in C. C. No. 1032/55, convicting him of an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused was on 11-9-54 found with a silver sport cup valued at Rs. 20 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The accused is said to have pleaded guilty which resulted in the conviction and sentence referred to above. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed. 3. It appears to me that the proceedings in the lower Court are attended with, serious irregularities. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure laid down in Section 262, Cr.P.C. has not been followed and...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1957 (HC)

Narasimiah Vs. Venkatappa and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1957Kant86; AIR1957Mys86; ILR1957KAR9; (1957)35MysLJ85

..... question 'whether an agriculturist plaintiff suing on an usufructuary mortgage deed can claim the benefit under the provisions of section 5 of the mysore agriculturists' relief act alleging that an apparently usufructuary mortgage deed was actually intended to be a simple hypothecation deed on which he could sue ior recovery of money by ..... the bombay highcourt in which it had been held that the plaintiffis entitled to the special benefit conferred by section 10-aof the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act and to askthe court to investigate the entire history of thetransaction to ascertain the true nature of the transaction entered into between the parties. reference in ..... . observed as follows :'in cases, as in the present case, where the parties to the transactions are agriculturists, section 5 of the mysore agriculturists' relief act enables them to adduce evidence to show that a document, which is ostensibly a sale deed, is in reality a deed of mortgage, notwithstanding any thing contained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1957 (HC)

Gangappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1959Kant100; AIR1959Mys100; 1959CriLJ496; (1958)36MysLJ124

..... is nothing wrong in the magistrate inquiring into or trying the case under that section.7. the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that section 51 of the mysore prohibition act being a special section, it over-rides the general provisions contained in the cr. p. c. i do not think that rule will apply in this case. ..... batch of 4 criminal revision petitions.2. the accused in these cases were convicted for offences under section 4(1)(g)(i) of the mysore prohibition act (which shall be hereinafter called 'the act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. they pleaded guilty in the trial court and were convicted on their plea,3. it ..... cases the old procedure is continued by section 252 cr. p. c.5. section 51 of the mysore prohibition act provides as follows: 'when a police or prohibition officer forwards in custody any person accused of an offence under this act to the magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into or try the case, or admits any such person to bail .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1957 (HC)

The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. N.S. Bathena

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1958Kant148; AIR1958Mys148; ILR1958KAR62; (1958)36MysLJ131

..... licensee and the government. only the government or the board can raise a dispute as regards the adjusted rates. the consumer cannot taise any dispute about it. the act of the licensee unilaterally imposing standing charges are beyond his powers and opposed to the terms of his licensee and as such can be challenged before a court of ..... of this schedule shall be referred to the arbitration of the authority.' according to the petitioner, the dispute in hand, falls within clause 1 of schedule 6 of the act. the said clause is as follows : 'the licensee shall so adjust his rates for the sale of electricity by periodical revision that his clear profit in any year ..... fell within the category of 'other person' mentioned in section 76(1). this contention was rejected by the trial court. according to that court section 76(1) of the act provided for compulsory 'arbitration' in all disputes between the government and the board on the one side and the licensee on the other. the word 'other person' in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1958 (HC)

Muninajappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1958Kant138; AIR1958Mys138; 1958CriLJ1205; (1958)36MysLJ175

..... said section and it would embolden the untruthful witnesses to develop their story with impunity. i see no room for this criticism. what section 162, criminal p. c., prohibits is the use of any statement made under it and not the omission thereof.a statement under section 162, criminal p. c., is a previous statement. there is ..... but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.'at this stage i may also conveniently quote section 145 of, the indian. evidence act. it is as follows:'a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in ..... officer making an investigation under this chapter or any police-officer not below such rank as the state government may. by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf acting on the requisition of such officer 'may examine orally' any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.(2) such person shall be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 1958 (HC)

V. Naidu Vs. K. Janardhana Holla

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1959Kant119; AIR1959Mys119; 1959CriLJ620; ILR1958KAR354; (1958)36MysLJ592

..... that the learned district magistrate had put an erroneous interpretation on the said section. in order to appreciate the scope of section 203, cr. p. c. as amended by act xxvi of 1955, it is necessary to place before ourselves tho relevant sections as they stood prior to the amendment in question.the relevant sections are sections 200 to 203 ..... sufficient ground for proceeding. in such cases he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing'.3. both sections 200 and 203, cv. p. c. have been amended by tho act xxvi of 1955. the present section 200, cr. p. c. is as follows :'a magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and ..... the order in question in his presence. it is not open to the respondent at this stage to contend that the petitioner should not be heard even otherwise, i can act suo motu. this case raises a new and important question of law.7. in the result the order of the learned district magistrate under revision is set aside and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1958 (HC)

H.N.S. Iyengar Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Mysore City

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Kant77; AIR1960Mys77

..... escaped assessment for that year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief under the act, or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed,.................... he may in cases falling under clause (a)at any time..........serve on the assessee......a notice containing all ..... the petitioner must fail.(7) the result, therefore, is that this petition succeeds and is allowed. the notice issued under section 34 of the indian income-tax act dated 27-11-56 is quashed and the proceedings which have taken place pursuant to the said notice are also quashed. the petitioner is entitled to costs of this ..... section. the main contention of the petitioner before the authority concerned was that the notice was given beyond the period mentioned in section 34 of the income-tax act. the income-tax officer did not accept that contention. the present petition has been filed as a result thereof.(2) two points were urged before us by mr .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1958 (HC)

K. Ramachandra Vs. State of Mysore and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Kant65; AIR1960Mys65; (1960)ILLJ210Kant

..... during the course of the hearing, seems to be equally frivolous. as i have already mentioned that sometime in march 1958 the enquiry committee appointed by the karnataka university for the inspection of the teachers training college, gulbarga, visited the said college and thereafter made its report recommending the case of the petitioner. i ..... , , the learned advocate-general has contended that before a probationer can be said to have entered the permanent employment of his employer some positive or affirmative act on the part of the employer is necessary. according to him, there must be a specific order of confirmation and unless such an order is passed a ..... university. prior to the appointment of the petitioner as the principal of the said college the 2nd respondent who was the inspector of schools, gulbarga, was acting as principal. on the 25th july 1956 the government of hyderabad issued a notification whereby the method of recruitment and qualification for the post of principal, b .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //