Karnataka Court January 1958 Judgments
Channamma Vs. Dhalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Kant147; AIR1958Mys147; 1958CriLJ1331; ILR1958KAR137; (1958)36MysLJ171
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of A complaint filed by one Channamma who is the petitioner against her husband the respondent complaining that ho had committed an offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code. The Court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. The view taken by the Court below was that an adjudication by the District Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that the second marriage contracted by the accused as alleged by the complaint was void, was a condition precedent to the Magistrate taking cognisance of the complaint. The complainant has preferred this revision petition to this court against the order of the Magistrate dismissing her complaint. 2. It is urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the view taken by the learned Magistrate that an adjudication by the Dist. Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that the second marriage was void should pre...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nathmal Sanchethi and ors. Vs. Dasarath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant96; AIR1959Mys96; (1958)36MysLJ204
ORDER1. These are connected revision petitions. The decree-holders are the petitioners and the respondents are the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors are the workmen in the Gold Mines in the Kolar District. As per the agreement dated 13-9-1955 and filed before the Industrial Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded certain bonus to the workmen.The decree-holders in execution of the decrees obtained by them attached the bonus due to the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors objected to the same. They contended that bonus is part of ''wages' and the same is protected by Section 60(1)(h) G.P.C. The learned Munsiff, K.G.F. accepted this contention and raised the attachments. The petitioners have come up in revision as against those orders.2. The only question that has to be considered in these revision petitions is as to whether the bonus granted to the respondents in these petitions can be said to be a part of their wages, and consequently falling within Section 60(1)(h) C.P.C. Neith...
Tag this Judgment!Salvadore C. Pinto Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant144; AIR1959Mys144; 1959CriLJ750; ILR1958KAR225; (1958)36MysLJ473
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the learned District Magistrate, South Kanara, under Section 71(1) read with Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction is unsustainable. According to him, the petitioner could not have been convicted under Section 71(1). The charge discloses an offence under Section 71(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On an examination of Section 71 it is seen that Section 71(1) refers to the maximum speed fixed for the vehicle Itself, whereas under Section 71(2) speed is restricted in respect of certain particular areas. The charge in this case indicates that the speed restricted to the area mentioned in the charge is less than the speed at which the petitioner was driving his vehicle. If that be so, the offence willbe one that would fall under Section 71(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But,...
Tag this Judgment!Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1958
Reported in: [1959]37ITR518(KAR); [1959]37ITR518(Karn)
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. This petition arises out of an order of imposition of penalty made by the Income-tax Officer under section 46 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner before us was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1951-52 on the 15th March, 1956. The income assessed was Rs. 1,91,017 and the tax demanded from the petitioner on such assessment was Rs. 67,383-12-0, and it was made payable on or before 20th April, 1956. Against that order of assessment the petitioner filed an appeal on 5th April, 1956, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. After having filed the said appeal, the petitioner requested the Income-tax Officer to grant him time to pay the amount till the disposal of the appeal. That prayer was refused by the Income-tax Officer on 28th March, 1956. The petitioner applied on 5th April, 1956, to the inspecting Assistant Commissioner to grant him time to pay till the disposal of the appeal. The Inspecting Assistant commissioner give time till 1st June, 1956. ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Shivanna Vs. Board of Revenue in Mysore, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant23; AIR1959Mys23; (1958)36MysLJ757
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This petition has been filed against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 6-6-1957. The contention of the petitioner before us is that the Board of Revenue has, on an erroneous view of the matter failed to exercise jurisdiction. The matter arises in this way :2. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner before us, one Gopalan, had a permit for the route between Bangalore and Sidlaghatta, the distance of which is 50 miles. The fourth respondent also had a permit in respect of the said route. On 17-12-1952, a fresh permit was granted to the petitioner's predecessor. In that permit no timings were mentioned. It was granted by the Chairman, Mysore State Transport Authority. Thereafter, it appears, the Regional Transport Authority of Kolar District, within which a part of the route between Bangalore to Sidlaghatta falls, gave him a permit, No. BP. 160/53-54, in which the timings for the trips between Sidlaghatta and the district border of Kolar District were fix...
Tag this Judgment!Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, Kolar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant44; AIR1959Mys44
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This petition arises out of an order of imposition of penalty made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 46 of the Income-tax Act. The Petitioner before us was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1951-52 on 15-3-1956. The income assessed was Rs. 1,91,017/- and the tax demanded from the Petitioner on such assessment was Rs. 67,383-12-0, and it was made payable on or before 20-4-1956. Against that order of assessment the Petitioner filed an appeal on 5-4-1956 to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.After having filed the said appeal, the Petitioner requested the Income-tax Officer to grant him time to pay the amount till the disposal of the appeal. That prayer was refused by the Income-tax Officer on 28-3-1956. The petitioner applied on 5-4-56 to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to grant him time, to pay till the disposal of the appeal. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gave time till 1-6-1956.On 25-5-1956, the petitioner again applied to the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnadevaraya Vs. the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant209; AIR1959Mys209; (1958)36MysLJ642; [1958]9STC793(Kar)
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. This petition can be disposed of on one short round. It arises in this way:--. The Petitioner was provisionally assessed with tax in respect of the sale transactions of his business ending with 31-3-1955. He was given notice on 21-3-1955 calling upon him to pay the amount of the said assessment. The petitioner's case is -- and that case has not been disputed before us -- that prior to such assessment he was not required to furnish either an advance estimate of his turnover for the year, or periodical returns of the actual turnover. At the said date there, was no provision in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, for mating provisional assessment. In August 1955 an amending Act being Act No. 17 of 1955 came into existence. Section 12 of the said Act provides as follows:--'Validation:-- All assessments and collections made and other acts and tilings done (including orders made) before the commencement of this Act, which can be made or done under the principal Act as amended ...
Tag this Judgment!Muninajappa and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Kant138; AIR1958Mys138; 1958CriLJ1205; (1958)36MysLJ175
ORDER1. The petitioners are the accused in. C. C. No. 2038 of 1957 on the file or the First Class Magistrate, Bangalore. They are accused of an offence under Section 302, I. P, C. The case is at the stage of preliminary enquiry. In the course of the cross-examination of p. w. 2, his statement under Section 162, Criminal P. C., was marked as Exhibit D-3. Exhibit D-3 was read out to the witness.He was asked as to whether certain facts deposed to by Win in court are found in that statement. By this process the learned Advocate for the accused wanted to establish certain omission. During the re-examination, the Prosecutor wanted to explain the omissions in question with reference to a further statement made by the witness to the police during the investigation.This was objected to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The basis of his objection was that he had contradicted the witness with reference to a statement made by him to the Police on 15-9-1957 at 7-30 a. m. whereas re-examin...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Narayana Iyengar Vs. H.V. Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Kant113; AIR1958Mys113; (1958)36MysLJ134
ORDER1. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. The respondents applied to the learned Munsiff, Dodballapur, in H.R.C. No. 3 of 1954 to evict the petitioner on the ground that they wanted the premises for their own use and occupation and also on the ground that the premises required repairs. The learned Munsiff rejected the application. In his opinion the building did not require any substantial repairs. He arrived at the conclusion that the respondents bona fide required the house for their own use, but felt unable to grant any relief to them as in his view the petition was not sustainable. He opined that it was barred by the rule of res judicata in view of the decision in H.R.C. No. 8/49-50. He further held that the quit notice issued by the landlords has been waived as they have received rent for a period subsequent to the determination of the lease. 2. The respondents went up in appeal to the learned Third Additional District Judge, Ban...
Tag this Judgment!H. Syed Ahmad Vs. Naghath Parveen Taj Begum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Kant128; AIR1958Mys128; 1958CriLJ1201; (1958)36MysLJ184
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Misc. No. 16 of 1956. It is an order passed under Section 488, Cr. P. C. The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is his wife.2. The petitioner is an advocate practising in the City of Bangalore. He is a young man aged about 28 years. He married respondent on 17-1-1955. She was about 16 or 17 years old at the time of her marriage. The parties come from very respectable families. The marriage was performed with due pomp and ceremony. The young couple stirred their life with love and affection. The petitioner presented a number of jewels to his wife.The petitioner says that he even purchased a car to humour his wife. But their happiness was short lived. Very soon after their marriage they seemed to have differed on small matters, and made mountains of mole hills. I have carefully scanned the evidence on record to find out the cause of this disagreement. I am unable to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›