Karnataka Court November 1961 Judgments
Chokla Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ705
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner who was working as a cooli in the Railway at Wadi Railway Station was tried summarily for theft of certain articles from a Railway Wagon, convicted Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 10/-. A Revision Petition against that before the District Magistrate of Gulbarga having failed, the petitioner has now come up to this Court.2. The substantial point argued by Mr. Jahagirdar on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the opinion expressed by several High Courts in the cases cited by him, Sachidanand v. State : AIR1956All212 , Subramanya v. The Queen ILR 6 Mad 396 and Bradley v. Emperor A.I.R. 1932 Lah 188, the petitioner ought not to have been tried summarily Under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These decisions do not say, nor does the learned Counsel contend, that the trial of a Government servant summarily for an offence of the type enumerated in the said Section is necessarily illeg...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Swaranavar Nashar and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mys49
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. By consent of parties Writ Petition No. 1367 of 1961 is treated as also being on the cause list today for hearing.2. In these fifteen cases we are principally concerned with the constitutionality of the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961 (Mysore Act No. 10 of 1961) which was a law made by the Legislature of the new State of Mysore to provide for the levy of tax on passengers and goods carried in stage carriages and public carrier vehicles in the State of Mysore. This Act received the assent of the President on May 31, 1961, although it is admitted that at the stage when the bill was introduced or moved in the Legislature of the State, the previous sanction of the President had not been obtained. Under the scheme of this enactment, the constitutionality of which is impugned by the petitioners, a tax on passengers, luggage and goods carried in stage carriages as defined by the impugned Act and a tax on goods carried by public carrie...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Jewellers and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, South Kanara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC668(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. This order is made in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1961, which is set down for hearing, and in Writ Petitions Nos. 889, 890, and 891 of 1961, which by consent of parties, are treated as being on the list today for final hearing. 2. In these four cases, the petitioners who are bullion merchants and jewellers in Mangalore, complain that the respondent who is a Commercial Tax Officer, functioning under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, intends to levy sales tax on sales of bullion effected by them not at the rate prescribed by the seventy-fourth entry in the Second Schedule to the Act, as provided by section 5(3)(a) of the Act but under section 5(1) as if none of the Schedules to the Act prescribes the rate at which sales tax is payable in respect of sales of bullion effected by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners admittedly buy what is described as mint gold from the Bombay mint, and to every eleven parts of gold, they add one part of copper, and make it into a compoun...
Tag this Judgment!Madivala Thimmiah Vs. Sivarudriah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ708
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The First Magistrate of Bangalore having started certain proceedings Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made a reference to the Munsiff at Doddaballapur Under Section 146 (1) of the same Code. Thereafter when one Ramaiah made an application to the Magistrate for being added as a party to the proceedings on the ground that he was in possession of one of the items of land in dispute, the Magistrate referred him to the court of the Munsiff. The Munsiff thought that his powers were confined to the reference and rejected the application. On a revision petition filed by the said Ramaiah before the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, he has made this reference exorcising an opinion that the Munsiff's view as to his competence to entertain the application of Ramaiah is wrong in law and recommending that the said application be granted and he be added as a party to the proceedings.2. The basis of the learned Munsif's view appears to be that he...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Adapa and ors. Vs. Girija and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant72; AIR1962Mys72; ILR1962KAR225
Hegde, J. (1) The questions of law referred for the decision of the Full Bench are:'1. Whether, by virtue of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the interest of the first defendant in the share taken by him as the sole member of a nissanthathi kavaru, became capable of being disposed of by will?and 2. Whether Sub-section (3), (4) and (5) of section 36 of the Aliyasanthana Act are inconsistent with the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, do they, by the operation of Sub-section (1) (b) of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, cease to apply?' (2) The material facts are not in dispute and they are fully set out in the order of reference. As per the preliminary decree dated 26.8.1952, the deceased first defendant had been allotted a 75/360th share in the family properties. He died on 25.7.1956. he had left behind him a will executed on 19.6.1956 bequeathing the properties allotted to his share...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Subbarayappa and Sons Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar Circle, K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC571(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. In these two cases, the petitioners who call themselves as K. S. Subbarayappa and Sons, challenge the validity of two assessments made upon a dealer called K. S. Subbarayappa and Sons, on 23rd February, 1959, by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar Circle, Kolar, in respect of the assessment year 1956-57 and in respect of the transactions between 1st April, 1957, and 26th June, 1957, under the provisions of section 12 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. It is undisputed that during the relevant periods to which the assessments relate, the dealer who was carrying on transactions was being called K. S. Subbarayappa and Sons. But, it is explained that that dealer was a Hindu joint family consisting of a father and six sons. There was, according to the petitioner, a partition in the family on 27th June, 1957, putting an end to the joint family status of the members of that Hindu joint family. On 23rd February, 1959, on which date the impugned assessments were made, ...
Tag this Judgment!Domingo John Picardo Vs. Gregory Pinto
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant190; AIR1962Mys190
ORDER(1) The respondent sued the petitioner for the recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of a shop occupied by the petitioner. The respondent is employed abroad, and the rents were being collected on his behalf by a sister-in -law of his residing in Mangalore. The claim in the suit was for rents due in respect of the period from 1-1-1952 to 31-1-1958 after giving credit for two payments, one of Rs. 216/- in November 1957, and the other of Rs.72/- in February 1958, together with interest and other charges. The plaint claim came to Rs. 229-57. The suit has been decreed by the Court below.(2) The only point raised in this Revision petition is that in respect of the payment of Rs. 216/- in the month of November 1957, there had been an express appropriation by the paying debtor, the tenant, to the effect that the same was intended as payment of the rent for 3 years ending 31-12-1956. If this case of appropriation by the tenant is accepted, part of the claim in suit would he barred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjoorkhan Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant106; AIR1962Mys106
ORDER(1) The petitioner who is ht third accused in Criminal Case No. 539 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, Davangere, prays that the charge of the abutment framed against him by the Magistrate be quashed on the ground that the framing of the charge is opposed to the provisions of S. 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(2) In Cr. R. No. 113 of 1961 decided on the 9th August 1961, this Court has held that the only materials on which the Magistrate may depend either for the purpose of discharging the accused or for framing a charge him are the documents referred to in S. 173 of the Code and what might emerge from the examination of the accused if he is examined, and that these Magistrate should take into consideration the arguments that may be presented by the accused and the prosecution when the affords them an opportunity of being heard.(3) In this case, there is no complaint that there has been any contravention of the principle laid down in th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mysore Spun Silk Mills Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1961
Reported in: [1963]33CompCas713(Kar)
1. This is an application under section 460(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, by the petitioning creditor in the main petition questioning the correctness of the decision of the liquidator embodied in his order dated November 13, 1961, admitting the claims of the workmen of the company for preferential payment of amounts due on account of such items as notice-pay compensation, for retrenchment, etc. 2. Originally, the claims of workers had been examined by the liquidator on the basis of four proofs, two by individual employees, one by Rangiah purporting to act o behalf of 242 workers, and the lost by Mohamed Peer purporting to act on behalf of 1,129 workers. The liquidator did not entertain the claim of one of the individuals. No further question arises about it. The rest of the claims have been examined by him. He made an order in respect thereof on September 7, 1960. There was an appeal against the order to the company court, being Creditor's Appeal No. 8/61 preferred by Mohamed Peer. T...
Tag this Judgment!Hunnikeri Bros. Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Dharwar Division and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant169; AIR1962Mys169
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) There seven writ petitions concern the validity of an acquisition proceeding in which a land situate in Marain Timmasagar, in Hbli, to the extent if a little more than four acres, was proposed to be acquired under a preliminary notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquistion Act in June 7, 1956, its supplemented by a final notification published on October 12, 1956, and amended by yet another notification published in June 30, 198. The award in those Acquistion proceedings was made on March 21, 1961. On March 22, 1961, the City Survey Officer issued a notice to the petitioners before us, calling upon them to deliver possession of the acquired land to the State Transport Department on April 25, 1961. In there application which were pretended to this Court on April 20, 1961. We are asked to restrain the City Survey Officer and Tahslider, hebli, from taking delivery of possession of the acquired property, and to quash the award made by the Collector, on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »