Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant72; AIR1951Mys72
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. These are applns. filed under Article 226, Constitution of India, for issue of writs of certiorari calling for records & quashing the proceedings in Crim, case Nos. 1 & 2 of 1948. 49 on the file of the Ct. of the Sp. J, Tumhur & writs in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of petnrs. from detention. The two cases referred to arise out of disturbances which occurred on 1-3-1949 in the shandy of Sira, a Town in Tumkur District, from a clash between Hindus & Muscleman's resulting in the death of a Jamedar, grievous hurt to a Police Inspector & injuries to others. It is alleged in the affidavits filed in support of the petns. that charge sheets for offences under Sections 302, 326, etc., I. P. C., were presented on 9-4-1949 in the Ct. of the Sp. First. Clasa Mag, Madhugiri, by the Police against the petnrs. that by a Notn dated 22 4-1949, the Govt. of Mysore constituted the Ct. of the Special J. Tumkur, under Section 2 of the Sp. Criminal Courts Act, 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant173; AIR1960Mys173
Malimath, J.(1) This appeal arises out of a suit praying for damages for Rs. 30,000/- and also for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from manufacturing or marketing flower design chair seats. These reliefs are apparently claimed on the ground that the plaintiff has the patent rights under the Patents and Designs Act. But it is a curious suit in that the registered patentees are admittedly defendants 1 and 2 and, on their assignment, the name of defendant 3 has been registered as an assignee.Admittedly the name of the plaintiff is nowhere to be found it the Register of Patents. Ordinarily a suit for infringement of this nature is brought by a patentee against strangers on the allegation that there is an infringement by them of the patent rights. In this case, it is just the reverse of it. We had, therefore, to ask the learned advocate for the appellant to explain how he claims the rights of a patent so as to enable him to file such an action for infringement.His contention is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant194; AIR1959Mys194
Iqbal Hussain, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Koppal, Richer District passed in Appeal No. 4/4 of 1358 Fasli confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, in O. S. No. 122/1 of 1856F. Even though this is an appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, points of law have been raised in this appeal which require consideration.According to the Civil Procedure Code of Hyderabad, greater latitude is given to the appellants in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 602 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code) than it is under the Civil Procedure Code as applicable throughout India. As this suit was filed long prior to the coming into force of the latter, opportunity is given to the parties to argue both on facts as well as on law.2. The facts of the case arc briefly as follows:3. Plaintiff Gavisiddanna Gowda who is the respondent in the first appellate Court as we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant139; AIR1959Mys139
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by a tenant against whom an application had been made by a person who claimed to be his landlord for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in regard to arrears of rent payable by him. On 6-10-1956, an order was made in those proceedings ex parte, ordering the eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereupon, made an application on October 15, 1956, for getting that ex parte order set aside. The allegation that he made was that on the date on which the ex parte order was made against him he was present in Court although his advocate could not be present on account of his illness as a result of which he was being treated on that date in a private nursing home. According to him, when the case was called earlier in the day, although the tenant appeared before the Court, the-landlord did not. The case was accordingly kept by and was never called although he was waiting in the verandah of the court-hall till 5 p. m. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant260; AIR1959Mys260; 1959CriLJ1454; ILR1959KAR407
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrals, First Class, Ramdrug in C. C. No. 331 of 1957. By the afore-said order the learned Magistrate committed the four respondents and nine others to take their trial on charges under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149. 302. 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Coda and 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who perused the records and heard the arguments addressed to him on behalf of the respondents, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate committing the accused in C.C. No. 331 of 1957 to take their trial in the Court of Session without examining all the witnesses who had been cited in the charge-sheet as wit-nesses for the incident is illegal and therefore the order should be quashed.The learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant231; AIR1960Mys231
Kalagate, J.(1) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decree made by the Subordinate Judge, Mandya, in Regular Appeal No. 46 of 1952-53.(2) The plaintiff has filed the suit on the 14th of May 1951 to have it declared that the alienation made by his father under Ext. 1, dated 13-2-1941, in favour of defendant 1 is not binding on his half share and claiming possession of the same after partition.(3) The allegations in the plaint are that during his minority, his father, the deceased Helavegowda sold the schedule properties to the 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs. 280/- which is inadequate and that there was no legal necessity for the sale of the properties nor was there any family benefit.(4) The properties are three in number viz., two lands measuring 2 acres and 10 1/2 guntas, assessed at Rs. 2-13-6, and item No. 3 which is a house. These three properties have been alienated for Rs. 280/-. Defendant No. 1 has subsequently sold the suit item No. 3 to defendant No. 2 and that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant98; AIR1961Mys98; ILR1960KAR19
ORDER1. The petitioner who was the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 68 of 1959 prays for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The respondent resists the same on two grounds; (i) that the order in appeal (M. A. No. 68/59) is not a judgment, decree or final order' as contemplated in Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) of Article 133; and (ii) that the case is not a fit one for issuing the certificate prayed for. As we are in agreement with the respondent that the impugned order is not a 'judgment, decree or final order' as contemplated in Article 133, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the case is one where the certificate prayed for should be granted. 2. According to Sri M. K. Nambiar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner the order in question is a 'final order' or at any rate it comes within the scope of the word 'judgment'. The expression 'final order' found in Article 133 is not a new expression. The same words were found in Section 109 of the Civil Proc...
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 : AIR1965Kant19; AIR1965Mys19
ORDER(1) The petitioner who has been officiating as Deputy Superintendent of Police on promotion from his substantive post of Inspector of Police, has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the memo dated 15-1-1962 which, in effect, reduces him in rank, on the ground that the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution had not been followed in passing that order. He has complained that the order has not only resulted in loss of higher pay and allowances but has also the effect of postponement of his future chances of promotion and consequent loss of seniority.(2) The facts relevant to the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are few and simple; The petitioner who is a double graduate of the Madras University joined the Police Department in the former Coorg State as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1935 and served in that capacity till 1-11-1949, when he was promoted as Inspector of Police. He was confirmed in the latter grade in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant102; AIR1965Mys102; (1964)1MysLJ488
(1) This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It arised from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Mysore, in Election Petition No. 48/62 on its file.(2) The appellant is the returned candidate in the general elections held in 1962, from the Mandya Constituency to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. The first respondent herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He is one of the voters in that Constituency. The second respondent was one of the defeated candidates. He was the Congress nominee. The third respondent was yet another candidate who contested the general elections without success. The tribunal set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices falling under Section 123(4) of the 'Act' during the Election. It declared the second respondents having been elected despite the fact that he had secured less voters than the appellant. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!