Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 1959 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.586 seconds)

Mar 23 1959 (HC)

The State Vs. Laxman Bhimappa Tyapi and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-23-1959

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!

Sep 23 1959 (HC)

Helava Vs. Sesigowda and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-23-1959

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!

Nov 18 1959 (HC)

The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-18-1959

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!

Mar 10 1959 (HC)

A. Narayana Kamath Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-10-1959

Reported in : AIR1960Kant33; AIR1960Mys33

Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This application is directed against an order made by the Mysore State Transport Authority on 29-11-1958 canceling a permit granted to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.(2) The impugned order was made in the following circumstances :(3) By a notification issued under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore, invited applications for the grant of a State Carriage permit for one bus to City type with Central Gangway, seating capacity of not less than 30 seated passengers and of a later (not older than 1952) Model' to ply on the following route in Mangalore :'Hampankatta to Leewell Via Maidan North Road, Resarie Church Road, and Hoige Bazar (Town route).'There were fourteen applicants for that permit of whom the petitioner was one.(4) The Regional Transport Authority decided to grant the permit to the pe...

Tag this Judgment!


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