Karnataka Court September 1956 Judgments
Mahadevan Vs. Lakshminarayan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant40; AIR1957Mys40; 1957CriLJ464; ILR1956KAR321
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-complainant against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 18 of 1956 confirming the order passed by the learned Second Magistrate, Kolar, discharging the respondent-accused in. C. C. No. 2127 of 1955.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows :3. The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted by the Kolar Town Police for an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. in the Court of the learned Second Magistrate, Kolar, alleging that be (accused) on 28-9-55 committed theft of three General Stamp paper valued at Rs. 300/- belonging to the petitioner-complainant, by snatching the same in a fit of anger from the pocket of the petitioner and tearing them off, and that he thereby committed an offence under Section 379, I. P. C.4. The procedure provided under Section 251-A of the amended Criminal Procedure Code was followed and the learned Magistrate fou...
Tag this Judgment!B. Seetharamaiah Vs. the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Bangalore City a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC611(Kar)
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. In all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality of the levy of sales tax under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act on the turnover of petitioners has been challenged. The turnover represents the amounts realised by sale of eatables and refreshments in hotels or restaurants kept by petitioners. Under section 3(a) of the Act the tax is payable on the annual turnover of every dealer. Sub-section (b) which at first prescribed the rate at which the tax is payable at three pies per rupee was altered by Act 25 of 1954 and now reads as follows :- '(b) the tax shall be calculated at the following rates : Rate of tax. (1) In the case of every dealer whose total Rs. 25 per annum.turnover is Rs. 7,500 and above but not exceeding Rs. 10,000.(2) In the case of every dealer whose total The rate specifiedturnover exceeds Rs. 10,000 but does not in item (1) on theexceed Rs. 25,000 turnover not exceeding Rs. 10,000and two pies in t...
Tag this Judgment!B. Seetharamaiah and ors. Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant63; AIR1957Mys63; (1957)35MysLJ125
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. In all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality of the levy of sales tax under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act en the turnover of Petitioners has been challenged. The turnover represents the amounts realised by sale of eatables and refreshments in hotels or restaurants kept by petitioners. Under Section 3 (a) of the Act the tax is payable on the annual turnover of every dealer. Sub-section (b) which at first prescribed the rate at which the tax is payable as three pies per rupee was altered by Act 25 of 1954 and now reads as fellows:'(b) the tax shall be calculated at the following rates:Rate of tax(1) In the case of every dealer whose totalturnover is Rs. 7,500 and abovebut not exceeding Rs. 10,000.Rs. 25 per annum.(2) In the case of every dealer whose totalturnover exceeds Rs. 10,000 but does notexceed Rs. 25,000.The rate specified in item (1) on theturnover not exceeding Rs. 10,000 and two piesin the rupee o...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa Vs. Vimala Devi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant44; AIR1957Mys44; ILR1956KAR317
ORDER1. The Petitioner before this Court filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Respondent praying for a decree for divorce. The Respondent who is the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. This has been granted and the Petitioner has been. directed to pay her Rs. 15/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 50/- towards her expenses.2. The main ground urged against this order is that the order is not warranted by Section 24 of the Act which provides for grant of maintenance pendents life and expenses of proceedings only against a respondent and not against a petitioner and that the terms petitioner and respondent relate to the substantive petition and not to any ancillary application. On the other hand it is contended for the Respondent that the words 'Petitioner' and 'Respondent' are intended to apply to the applicant under Section 24 and the opposing party in respect of su...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant52; AIR1957Mys52; 1957CriLJ523; ILR1956KAR308
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Mysore, in C.C. 606/51-52 refusing to withdraw the warrant issued by him for the recovery of the flue imposed on the petitioner. 2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows:-- 3. The petitioner was the accused in C.C. 606 of 1951-52 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Mysore. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 465 and 500, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate ultimately convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 465, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default 'to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Then a revision petition preferred by the petitioner to this Court in L. K. Siddappa v. Lalithamma,-Criminal Revn. Petn. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamad Khasim Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant49; AIR1957Mys49; 1957CriLJ520; ILR1956KAR315
ORDER1. In this case, the petitioner stands convicted by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, in C. C. 800/56, for. an offence under Section 56(O) of the Mysore Police Act, for having used indecent language in a public road at Ramanagaram Town, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days. In addition to this, the learned Magistrate directed that the accused should execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 300/-under Section 106 of the Cr. P. C. with two suieties for keeping the peace for a period of two years. This revision petition is admitted only for considering the propriety of the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 106 Cr. P. C. 2. The contention urged on the side or the petitioner is that the order under Section 106 Cr. P. C. cannot be sustained. I think that there is considerable force in this contention. Section 103 Cr. P. C. Inter alia provides that a Court may, at the time of passing sentence, order an accused to execute a bond, with...
Tag this Judgment!Mudligirigowda Vs. Chikkamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant62; AIR1957Mys62; ILR1956KAR307
1. The main point urged is that the suit is barred by limitation since the Article applicable to a suit like the one on hand is Article 120 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act and not Article 129. Even assuming that it is Article 120, the question that arises for consideration is from when the time has to be reckoned.2. It is urged for the Appellant that the date of the second marriage when, according to the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights Act the first wife gets the right to live away from her husband, is the starting point. I do not think that this contention is correct.The first wife no doubt gets the right to live away from her husband if he marries a second wife. But, it does not make It obligatory for her to live separately, nor does it even provide that she has straightaway to make up her mind whether she will live separately or not. It is quite open to her to live with her husband. There is no reason to apply any principle to the case of a wife who claims a right of main...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishna Swamy Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant92; AIR1957Mys92
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of respondent-Government bearing No. F L. 5103-5/8 and A, 55-54-2 D/-15-11-1954; as illegal and ultra vires. 2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows :3. The petitioner was an Agricultural Inspector under the respondent-State Government till 8-1-1947, when he was retired on a pension of Rs. 56-12-0. The question of payment of this pension was under correspondence for some time and, in the meanwhile, the respondent-Government passed an order directing the withholding of this pension and the insurance amount due to the petitioner on the ground that he was responsible for the loss of Rs. 9,508-8-0 said to have been incurred by the Arsikers Cotton Marketing Co-operative Society, Ltd., of which he (petitioner) was the Secretary for some time.The petitioner contended that he was not re...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Anniah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Kant38; AIR1957Mys38; 1957CriLJ463; ILR1956KAR301
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by the Petitioner State Government against the order of the learned Special Judge, Mysore Division, in Misc. Case No. 23/54 rejecting as not maintainable the charge-sheet placed by the Police of Channaraya-patna against the respondent-accused.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follow:3. The Police of Channarayapatna placed a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 161 read with Section 116,1.P.C., in the Court of the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Hassan, alleging that on 3-10-53 the respondent-accused offered a bribe of Rs. 25 to the Sub-Inspector of Police of Nuggenahalli as illegal gratification in return for some favour to be shown by the said Sub-Inspector and that the respondent-accused thereby committed an offence under Section 161 read with Section 116, I.P.C.4. The case was transferred to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate as per orders of the. District Magistrate and it...
Tag this Judgment!Kenchappa and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Fourth Circle, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: ILR1956KAR286; [1957]8STC329(Kar)
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. This is a batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the levy of sales tax on moneys realised for execution of certain contracts called 'works contract' has been challenged. The petitioners are charged with liability for payment of the tax not on the total amount received by them but on the value of goods supplied by them for fulfilment of contracts entered into with others. The value has been fixed and the tax assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder. The objections raised and arguments advanced being the same in all the petitions these may be conveniently disposed of by a single order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the articles used by them for carrying out the works undertaken by them are treated as goods sold by them and that the value of these is determined not by the actual cost paid for but by the application of a formula. It is true that consi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »