Karnataka Court August 1954 Judgments
State of Mysore Vs. A.C. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1954
Reported in: [1955]6STC34(Kar)
ORDER1. This petition has been registered on a reference made under section 16(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948 by the revising authority, the Commissioner of Sales Tax is Mysore. 2. The facts of the case as disclosed in the statement of case are as under : The respondent Hanumanthappa is a merchant in Chickkaballapur, dealing on his own account as well as on commission basis inside the State and also consigning goods outside the State. He claimed exemption in respect of goods sold by him or on his behalf on commission basis both by agents within and outside the State. The Sales Tax Officer granted exemption on all sales outside the State, but disallowed the claim on sales which took place within the State, holding that the respondent being the principal was liable to pay tax irrespective of the fact whether or not his agent had taken out a licence under section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. 3. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the commission agent s...
Tag this Judgment!Rangamma Vs. Honappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant64; AIR1955Mys64
ORDER1. The question for decision in these two cases is whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Admittedly the appeal rather the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis was filed beyond the time prescribed and for condonation of the delay an application was filed. The learned District Judge dismissed the application and consequently the appeal. The petitioner seeks revision of these. 2. The delay is said to be due to the application for copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed in Court about 10 days after the date of judgment not being found in the office. The advocate of the Petitioner and his clerk have filed affidavits in which it is admitted that Petitioner paid the amount to the counsel for obtaining the copies on the date of the judgment itself They are also examined as witnesses. The account (sic) books of the advocate written by the clerk she (sic) the receipt of the money on 14-7-52 and that (sic) application for copies ...
Tag this Judgment!Kursedji Wookerji Bananji Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant181; AIR1954Mys181; ILR1954KAR374
Venkataramaiya, J.1. The petitioner in these two cases is an accused in two cases on the file of the Court of the City Magistrate, Mysore, which arose from police charge sheets alleging commission of offence of cheating. The petitioner who is said to be a resident in Bombay applied for exemption from appearance in Court at the hearing but permission was refused on the ground that warrant and not summons was issued to him for his appearance. A decision of this Court in 3 Mys LJ 66 (N) (A) is referred to in support of the refusal. In that case summons was issued at first to the accused' and later on a warrant. But before the warrant was executed the accused applied for and obtained exemption. This was considered by Doraswamy Iyer J. to have the effect of the cancellations of the warrant and not as such to offend the provisions of Section 205, Criminal P.C. which states :'Whenever a magistrate issues a summons he may, if he sees reason to do so, dispense with the personal attendance of th...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Subba Rao Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant1; AIR1955Mys1; 1955CriLJ160
ORDER1. The Petitioner has been convicted Under Section 182 for making a false complaint against one Avani Munivenkatappa alleging illicit manufacture of toddy. The complaint, was made to the daffedar Malur on 8-10-52 and after Investigation a B report was filed. Sanction was obtained from the Superintendent of Police to prosecute the Petitioner for making a false complaint and a charge-sheet was filed in Courtfor the same. The prosecution examined sevenwitnesses and two were examined on behalf ofthe Petitioner. The learned Magistrate dis-believed the evidence in support of the defence,convicted the petitioner and sentenced him topay a fine of Rs. 30/-. 2. Sri Ranga Rao Kadom, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that the conviction is illegal on the ground that the condition necessary for the initiation of the proceedings has not been satisfied and that it is unwarranted since there is no finding that the Petitioner's complaint was false to his knowledge. The first ground la base...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Khasim Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ524; ILR1954KAR460; [1955]6STC211(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner who is common to these petitions has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, in C.C. Nos. 1180 and 1181/53 on his file and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in each case. 2. The prosecution was under section 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and related to the default in the payment of sales tax assessed amounting to Rs. 243-11-3 for the year 1950-51 and Rs. 956-6-3 for the year 1949-50. A common plea that he is not liable to pay taxes levied was entered into in both these cases. They were tried together as the offences were similar and against the same person. Mr. Nanjundaswamy, on behalf of the petitioner, raised rather faintly, an argument that the joint trial is void. I am unable to appreciate the argument since the procedure adopted is neither illegal nor is it shown that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner thereby. 3. It is next contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded...
Tag this Judgment!Dasa Naika Vs. Ramjee Naika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant32; AIR1955Mys32; 1955CriLJ391; ILR1954KAR370; (1956)34MysLJ152
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 976 of 53 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Chitaldroog against the order of the District Magistrate, Chitaldroog in Criminal B. P. No. 6/54 on his file directing the disposal of property under Section 520, Criminal P. C.2. The revision petition before the District Magistrate has been preferred by the respondent, P. W. 12 in the trial court, against the order of the Second Magistrate, Chitaldroog, directing that the property, the subject-matter of the criminal case viz., Rs. 1000/- be delivered to the complainant.3. During the course of arguments in this Court Mr. B.S. Puttasiddiah learned counsel for the respondent disclosed that an appeal has since been filed by the accused, before the Sessions Judge, against the judgment of conviction. The disposal of property being an integral portion of the judgment is finally subject to the order in appeal. Where no appeal is filed, it is clear that both the District Magistrate an...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Khasim Vs. State of Mysore by Sales Officer, No. 7th Sub Circl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant41; AIR1955Mys41; (1956)34MysLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioner who is common to these petitions has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore in C. C. Nos. 1180 & 1181/53 on his file and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in each case.2. The prosecution was under Section 20, Mysore Sales-tax Act, and related to the default in the payment of sales-tax assessed amounting to Rs. 243-11-3 for the year 50-51 and Rs. 956-6-3 for the year 49-50. A common plea that he is not liable to pay taxes levied was entered into to both these cases. They were tried together as the offences were similar and against the same per-son. Mr. Nanjundaswamy, on behalf of the petitioner, raised rather faintly, an argument that the joint trial is void. I am unable to appreciate the argument since the procedure adopted is neither illegal nor is it shown that any prejudics has been caused to the petitioner thereby.3. It is next contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not afforded adequate...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshaiah Vs. Subba Bhatta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1958Kant6; AIR1958Mys6
Mallappa, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 4. Sub-section 1 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Shi-moga, in C. Section No. 23 of 52-53 holding that the first defendant in that suit is not an agriculturist under the Agriculturists Relief Act. 2. It was urged in this case as is usual to urge in cases of this Kind that the revisional powers of this Court under Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act to examine the evidence and to interfere with the finding of the Courts below on the question of fact concerning status are greater than the revisiona1 powers usually exercised in small cause cases. The case relied on is the decision of Sreenivasa Rao J., reported in In re. Krishna Murthy, 15 Mys LJ 334 (A). Before considering that decision it is useful to compare 3. 4, Sub-section 2of the Mysore Agriculturists Belief Act with Section 10 of the Courts of Small Causes Act. According to Sections 10 a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›