Karnataka Court August 1956 Judgments
Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: ILR1956KAR266; [1957]8STC205(Kar)
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be disposed of by a single order as a common question raised is the legality of orders passed regarding the levy of sales tax on the purchase turnover of petitioners with respect to transactions in untanned hides and skins. Admittedly none of the petitioners had obtained licences to carry on the transactions and the orders have been passed after giving the petitioners opportunities to make any representations which they chose before the taxing officers. 2. The main grounds on which the orders were attacked by Sri Ullal who appeared for all the petitioners and addressed the same arguments on behalf of all were : (1) The assessments offend the provisions of Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India. (2) Rules in accordance with which assessments were made are invalid as these were not passed by the Legislature. (3) Rules 23(5) which alone can be availed of for the purpose of the levy is d...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Channamalla Setty and ors. Vs. Returning Officer and Amildar and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant16; AIR1957Mys16
Padmanabhiah, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of Writs of Prohibition, Mandamus and Quo Warranto against the respondents in connection with the election held to the Municipal Council at Gubbi on 28-2-1956.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:The petitioners and respondents 3 to 17 are residents of Gubbi Town in Tumkur District. The 1st respondent is the Returning Officer and the Amildar, of Gubbi, and the 2nd the Commissioner for Local Self-Government respondents 3 to 17 have been elected to the Municipal Council at Gubbi in the election held on 28-2-1956. Petitioners are stated to be some of the voters of Gubbi Town. Their contention is that the election is illegal and void on various grounds, that the respondents 3 to 17 have no right to sit as Councillors, that they should be prevented from doing so and that the Writs as prayed for are to be issued against them.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant14; AIR1957Mys14; [1957]8STC248(Kar)
ORDERUnder Section 16(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act the Deputy Commissioner has referred to this Court at the instance of the assesses the following questions for decision :1. Whether the sale of the value of Rs. 5,76,73,424-7-5 during the three Quarters ending December 50 was not complete as per explanation 2 Clause (1) Sub-clause (a) of Section 2 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act which was in force in 1950-51 and which reads as follows 'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Sale of Goods Act 1939 the sale or purchase of any goods shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have taken place in Mysore, wherever the contract of sale might have been made (a) if the goods were actually in Mysore at me time when the contract of sale or purchase in respect thereof was made' and hence whether such sales being complete in Mysore do not attract Mysore Sales Tax..2. Whether the petitioner is not liable to Sales Tax on the said quantity of tobacco and cigarettes of the total value of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!B. Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant22; AIR1957Mys22
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be disposed of by a single order as a common question raised is the legality of orders passed regarding the levy of Sales Tax on the purchase turnover of petitioners with respect to transactions in untanned hides and skins. Admittedly none of the petitioners had obtained licenses to carry on the transactions and the orders have been passed after giving petitioners opportunities to make any representation.; which they chose before the taxing officers.2. The main grounds on which the orders were attacked by Sri Ullal who appeared for all the petitioners and addressed the same arguments on behalf of all were:(1) The assessments offend the provisions of Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India. (2) Rules in accordance with which assessments were made are invalid as these were not passed by the legislature. (3) Rule 23(5) which alone can be availed of for the 'purpose of the levy is declared t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant5; AIR1957Mys5; 1957CriLJ76; ILR1958KAR589
Padmanabhiah, J. 1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioners-accused 1 & 2 against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 1912 of 1956, committing them to the Court of Session, Bangalore, to take their trial for offences under Sections 302, 307, 457. 380, 392, 394, 397 and 460 read with Section 34, Penal Code. 2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under: 3. The petitioners and another bv name Govinda Reddy were the accused in C. C. No. 1912/56 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore. As some of the offences charge-sheeted were exclusively triable by a Court of session, the procedure laid down in Section 207-A, Criminal P. C. was followed. On the side of the prosecution, no evidence was adduced but on a perusal of the documents referred to u/s. 173. Criminal P. C. and produced on the side of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prime facie case was made out against them ...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Naidu Vs. Shamsheer Jung Bahadur Rana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant21; AIR1957Mys21; 1957CriLJ210
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Cri. Misc. no. 131 of 1955, holding that the respondent-first party was entitled to remain in possession of the disputed property until evicted therefrom in due course of law.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: Proceedings were started by the police under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Cri. Mis. No. 131/55 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, tn connection with a dispute between the petitioner-2nd party and the respondent-1st party in relation to a strip of land lying between premises No. 3 belonging to the petitioner and No. 4 belonging to the respondent in Miller Road, Civil Station, Bangalore.The learned Magistrate enquired into the matter and held that there was no dispute with respect to the property in question and that there was no likelihood of any breach of the peace and observed that...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Murthy Vs. P.D. Narayan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant18; AIR1957Mys18; 1957CriLJ209; ILR1956KAR241
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant against the order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 611 of 1955, acquitting the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. 2. The facts that have given rise to this appeal are briefly as under:3. The appellant and respondent were the complainant and accused respectively in C. C. No. 611 of 1955 on the file of the learned First Class Magistrate, Civil Station. The case for the complainant was that he and the accused are two of the Committee Members of the Bangalore Committee of Mysore State Football Association, that a monthly meeting of that Association was held on 4-5-1955 at No. 113. B. Brigade Road, that, when one of the subjects was being discussed, the complainant got up to speak which the accused opposed, that after obtaining the permission of the President the complainant got up to speak, that the accused sprang up and caught hold of the complainant's collar ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant50; AIR1957Mys50; 1957CriLJ521
Padmanabhiah, J. 1. The present appellant, who was A-1 in Mandya Sessions Case No. 7 of 1955, stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case for the prosecution was that be (appellant-accused) on the night of 21-1-1955 assaulted his co-brother Manche Gowda alias Kenge Gowda with an axe M. O. 1 at Mullahalli and Malavalli Taluk and that he thus caused grievous hurt to the deceased punishable under Section 326, I. P. C. 2. Along with the appellant, there were 10 other persons who were also arraigned as accused, the case against them being that they intentionally caused the death of the said Manehegowda alias Kenge Gowda in furtherance of their common intention and that they thereby committed an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. Accused 2 to 11 have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›