Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: ancient hindu law Court: karnataka Year: 1974 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.107 seconds)

Aug 29 1974 (HC)

H.A. Hajee Ismail and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-29-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Kant67; ILR1975KAR415

order1. in these petitions under article 226 of the constitution, the sole question for decision is, whether the karnataka automobile tyres and tubes (control) order, 1971, is ultra vires and void as contended for the petitioners.2. the said order was made by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (central act 10 of 1955) (hereinafter called 'the act'), read with s. o. no. 1844, dated the 18th of june, 1966 issued by the government of india. it was made on 13th december, 1971, and published in the karnataka gazette dated 14th of december, 1971. it extends to the whole of the state of karnataka. it provides, among others, for regulating the sale of tyres and tubes of all varieties, issuing of licence and prosecution for contravening the conditions of the licence.3. the petitioners are dealers in tyres and tubes. their common contention is that the state government have had no power validly delegated by the central government under section 5 of the act, to provide for the matters in relation to the automobile tyres and tubes.4. in order to examine the contention, it is necessary to have a close look at the relevant provisions of the act. the act was intended to provide in the interest of the general public, power to control production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain commodities. 'essential commodity' was defined under section 2(a), as inclusive of various articles, like cattle .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1974 (HC)

The Superintendent, Central Excise Vs. V.A. Radha Krishna Setty

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-05-1974

Reported in : 1975CriLJ1161

..... and such goods were actually seized from his possession. if the prosecution can prove that the gold recovered from the possession of the respondent was smuggled gold as if in law a presumption to this effect arises then he will clearly be guilty of the offence under section 167. in the present case gold was, in fact, recovered from him and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1974 (HC)

K. Rayappa Vs. Lingappa

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-31-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Kant5; ILR1974KAR1485; 1975(1)KarLJ79

..... hold an inquisition has had an opportunity to see the alleged lunatic and examine him as he thought fit in the circumstances. this clearly he was entitled to do in law before proceeding to hold the inquisition proper. it is only on availing himself of such an opportunity, he has opined thus:'i had privilege of observing the demeanour of this ..... high court at allahabad has referred to the enunciation of the lahore high court in the case mentioned hereunder as laying down the law correctly in such matters as the one on hand. the passage reads thus:'in mt. teka devi v. gopal das, air 1930 lah 2s9 = 122 ind cas 570, it was ..... had treated and referred to the person in question as mentally retarded.5. before proceeding to consider the matter further, it may be convenient to clear the ground regarding the law governing the matter. this is best done by a referenceto certain enunciations in the decisions relied on at the bar.6. in joshi ram krishan v. rukmini bai : air1949all449 , the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1974 (HC)

Dasappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-25-1974

Reported in : 1975CriLJ1613

..... person has no permanent house. many an honest man may find himself in either predicament. in our country where there are workless people and casual labourers, if it were the law that such persona are to be exposed to proceedings under section 109(b) merely because they cannot give satisfactory account of the manner in which they are eking out their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1974 (HC)

Pachakhan Vs. H.D. Gopalakrishna Rao and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-10-1974

Reported in : AIR1975Kant179; ILR1975KAR25; 1975(1)KarLJ105

..... air 1937 mad 176 (kazi chettiar v. v. ramasami chettiar, firm) related to a claim of self-acquisition by a member of a joint hindu family. it was held that such a claim cannot be said to be a claim by a stranger asserting paramount title. hence it does not apply ..... partly irrelevant, or bases its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then in such a situation clearly an issue of law arises; and that in such a case, it is well established that when a court of fact acts on material partly relevant and partly irrelevant ..... of paramount title in a mortgage suit. the nine principles stated in : air1970ap153 , represent, in my opinion, the correct statement of the position of law. i may also add that under order 1, rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, unless the objection with regard to misjoinder has been ..... air1961pat28 (aneshwar prasad v. misri lall) wherein, it has been held that where the defendants were trespassers in possession of the mortgaged properties without any lawful title, the decree for redemption obtained by the plaintiff would become infructuous and that in such a case it is desirable that such defendants should be ..... upon that issue, neither party can afterwards say that the issue was irrelevant. in : air1970ap153 (r. veeraswamy v. r. jangammayya) the position of law on the question whether the persons claiming paramount title independently but not through the mortgagor or mortgagee can be called necessary or proper parties to a suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

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