Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys75; 1966CriLJ270
ORDER(1) The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under S. 59(b) of the Mysore Prohibition a and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 by the trial Court. The prosecution case is that on 14-7-1962 at about 7 P.M., the petitioner was found in possession of a bottle of country liquor. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Dhar war confirmed the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and restrained the fine of Rs. 500. The petitioner has come up in revision against the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Dharwar. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged 4 points before me. They are: (1) the report of the Chemical Engineer, Exhibit P-5, is inadmissible does not contain the data or particulars necessary in helping the Court to accept his opinion. (3) There was undue delay in the examination of the bottle alleged to contain liquor an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant154; AIR1966Mys154; (1965)1MysLJ442
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) An successful plaintiff who sued for specific performance of n agreement of sale executed by the defendant in his favour on July 20, 1958, under which he agreed to convey to the plaintiff two lands bearing survey Nos. 5 and 12 in the village of Pattihal in the District of Belgaum, measuring 41 acres and 26 guntas in the aggregate for a sum of Rs. 32,000 is the appellant before us. That agreement is Exhibit 32 which recited that out of the consideration for the sale, a sum of Rs. 2,000 was set off against an outstanding liability of the defendant on accounts, and that a postdated cheque for Rs. 5,000 bearing the date September 1, 1958, was also delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date of the agreement. The further recital was that the balance of Rs. 25,000 should be paid at the time of registration. The date fixed for performance was March 9, 1959.(2)The Plaintiff stated that he issued a notice to the Defendant on February 26, 1959 demanding performan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant76; AIR1965Mys76; (1965)1MysLJ158
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) In this appeal, we are asked to pronounce against the constitutionality of sections 19 and 29(2)(c) of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Mysore Act No. 21 of 1964).(2) The question arises in this way.On July 5, 1956, the Civil Judge, Senior Division Bijapur made an order in certain execution proceedings refusing the adjournment prayed for by the two judgment-debtors who are the appellants before us and directing execution to proceed. The value of the subject matter of the suit which is source of this appeal was more than Rs. 10,000/- but less than Rs. 20,000/-. Under Section 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, in all cases in which the subject matter of the suit exceeds Rs. 10,000/- and appeal could be preferred to the High Court. It was under the provisions of that section that the judgment-debtors who felt aggrieved by the order of the Civil Judge preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay which, on a certificate issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant100; AIR1966Mys100; (1965)1MysLJ577
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This second appeal concerns the succession to the properties of a certain Siddalingiah who died in the year 1954. His wife Siddavva who survived him died in the year 1956 and the defendant is their daughter.(2) The source of this appeal is a suit brought by Channavva the plaintiff, claiming to be he second wife of Siddalingiah. That she was married in the year 1951 to Siddalingiah in the State of Bombay was her case, and, she claimed Siddalingiah's properties as his widow to the exclusion of the defendant. She sought a decree for possession of those properties from the defendant.(3) The defendant did not in the courts below admit that the plaintiff was the wife of Siddalingiah, and pleaded that she was only his concubine. But, both the courts below pronounced that there was a marriage between the plaintiff and Siddalingiah. But while the Munsiff who thought that that marriage was invalid dismissed the suit, the District Judge to whom the plaintiff appealed, found th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant118; AIR1966Mys118; (1965)1MysLJ546
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This is a plaintiff's appeal from the Decree of the Subordinate Judge, South Kanara who dismissed the suit brought by the Plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,19,490-37 nP. by way of damages.(2) The material facts are these:On January 21, 1957 the plaintiff which is a statutory body called the Coffee Act (Central Act VII of 1942) invited tenders for the purpose of 839 tons of various types and grades of Coffee specified in the tender notice. The defendant who is a merchant of Mangalore carrying on business in the export of coffee to foreign markets, submitted his tender on February 13, 1957. It was found by the Coffee Board that the rates specified by the defendant in his tender were the highest rates in respect of 319 tons of Coffee of various types and grades. The Coffee Board which will be referred to as the 'Board' accordingly communicated to the defendant by its letter of February 14, 1957 its acceptance of the tender of the defendant with respect to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant84; AIR1964Mys84
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In these applications, we are asked to pronounce against the constitutionality of a legislation made by the legislature of the new State of Mysore instituted the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Mysore Act No. 14 of 1961), and. In the decision of this question, we had theadvantage of an interesting and learned argument on both sides.2. The applicants are village officers of the new State of Mysore. Some of them are Shanbhogs and the others are patels. We have before us Shanbhogs and patels appointed under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, (Mysore Act No. IV of 1908) and village officers known as Karnams appointed under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. III of 1895). There is one more before us who is called a stipendiary shanbhog appointed under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code.3. In the thirty six matters which were heard together, there are in all 943 applicants 924 out of them are shanbhogs among whom one is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant28; AIR1965Mys28; (1964)1MysLJ31
M. Sadasivayya, J.(1) These proceedings pertain to the findings of a Tribunal which had been constituted under Section 11(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, (hereinafter referred to as the Act); the findings of the Tribunal have been forwarded to this High Court under Section 12(2) of the Act. By reason of the first proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (3) of the Advocate's (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1963, this matter will have to be dealt with and disposed of by this High Court, under Section 12 of the Act.(2)The undisputed facts of the case are as follows : The complainant Janab Mana Mohamed Ismail Saheb had engaged the services of the respondent-Advocate Shri V. Balarathnam to apply to the High Court of Mysore for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make a reference on a question of law arising out of an Income-tax case which before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The respondent-Advocate, accordingly made an application for that purpose, under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211
1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.But in the appeal preferred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1962]13STC993(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In this revision petition, the petitioner who is a hotelier complains against the assessments made in his case under section 12(2)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. The material facts are these :- The petitioner keeps a hotel called the Durga Lodge at Davanagere and a restaurant called Sri Krishna Vilas Restaurant at the Chitradurga. For the assessment year 1956-57, the turnover declared by him for each of these eating houses was not accepted by the assessing authority who assessed him to the best of his judgment. The declared turnover of the Durga Lodge was Rs. 14,699 and of Sri Krishna Vilas Restaurant Rs. 79,470. The assessing authority determined the taxable turnover of the Durga Lodge to be Rs. 20,000 and of the other to be Rs. 1,00,000. In the appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, the estimated turnover of the Durga Lodge was maintained but that of the Krishna Vilas Restaurant was reduced to Rs. 90,000 and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed these es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant196; AIR1962Mys196
ORDER(1) The petitioner in this case who is a Havaldar in the Madras Engineering Group, Ulsoor and who is therefore an employee in the Indian army, was charged with having committed the murder of one Tatachari, a Subedar in that army unit on November 1, 1961. The information about this murder was communicated by one Captain Yedav, another officer in that army on November 2, 1961, and this information reached the concerned Magistrate on November 3, 1961. After the investigation was completed by the police, a charge sheet was placed before the Magistrate on November 22, 1961. On December 8, 1961, the officer commanding the army in which the petitioner was serving, made an application to the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Army Act asking for the delivery of the petitioner to him so that he may be tried by a Court -martial. The magistrate gave the officer commanding, the order which he wanted, and it is against this order that the petitioner complains in this revision petition.(2) It ...
Tag this Judgment!