Karnataka Court February 1961 Judgments
The State of Mysore Vs. Dyavegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant124; AIR1962Mys124; ILR1961KAR586
Hegde, J. (1) These are appeals under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They relate to one incident. It is alleged that the respondents delayed one Ningappa on the night of 13-12-1958 to Cholenahalli village and there they murdered and robbed him. The charge of murder was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, Camp Hassan, in Hassan Sessions Case No. 4 of 1959, and the respondents were acquitted as per the judgment dated 15-4-1959. Cr. A. No. 207/59 is directed against the said decision.After the acquittal of the respondents in H. S. C. No. 4/59, the respondents were tried for the offence under section 392 I. P.C. by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore, Camp: Hassan, with the aid of Jury in Hassan Sessions Case No. 5 of 1959. In that case the Jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty' . The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the Jury and acquitted the respondents. In Criminal Appeal No. 318/59, the legality as well as the correctness of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Balappa Venkat Rao Desai and ors. Vs. Waman Krishna Mutalik Desai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant235; AIR1962Mys235
Das Gupta, C.J.(1) The facts leading upto this appeal may be shortly stated as follows:(2) The plaintiff and his ancestors have been sub-inamdars under the defendant and his ancestors from a long time. In the year 1922 the defendant filed a watan case being case No. 15/22-23 before the Collector of Mohole for recovery of possession under section 11 of the Watan Act. On 14-4-27 order for possession was made by the Collector and possession of the lands in question was made over to the defendant by the Collector. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of the Commissioner. That appeal was not disposed of until the year 1946. On 8-10-46 the decision of the Collector was reversed and an order for restoration of possession wax made in favour of the plaintiff. In 1947 the plaintiff obtained possession of the suit lands. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition for revision to the Resident of Kolhapur and obtained a stay order. But the said revision petition was ultimately dismi...
Tag this Judgment!M.H. Shivaji Rao Vs. Niranjanaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant36; AIR1962Mys36
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by the judgment- debtor in Examine. Case No. 117/55 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore. In the said execution case the judgment- debtor entered into an arrangement with the decree- holder by which he executed a mortgage for the amount due under the decree. Thereafter the judgment- debtor deposited Rs. 80/- being the five percent of the sale price in Court and made an application the decree-holder admitted that the amount of the decree had been satisfied in the manner indicated as above. The application was, however, opposed by the decree- holder should be deposited in cash. In other words, his contention was that where the decree has been adjusted in the manner as indicated above the case does not come under Order 21, Rule 89.(2) The Subordinate Judge, following two decisions, i.e. Venkataswami v. Chayapathi, 2 Mys LJ 31 and Rabindra Nath v. Harendra Kumar, : AIR1956Cal462 held that the amount due to the decree- holder need not be act...
Tag this Judgment!K.Y. Pilliah and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR136(KAR); [1962]45ITR136(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J.1. This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act arises out of a claim made by the assessee for an order under section 25A(1) of the Act in the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1953-54. Admittedly, the assessee was being assessed as a Hindu undivided family up to the assessment year 1952-53. The assessment for the year 1952-53 was completed on February 25, 1957. On the 6th of December, 1957, the assessee made the application referred to above under section 25A(1) claiming that by virtue of an agreement dated the 27th of March, 1953, and a declaration made before the Magistrate on the 1st of April, 1953, the joint family property has been partitioned among the members in definite portions and that, therefore, they were entitled to ask for an order from the Income-tax Officer recording that fact. The officer having refused to make an order as asked for and his refusal having been confirmed both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and...
Tag this Judgment!Amargundappa, Arali Oil Miller, Gangavati Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR791(KAR); [1962]46ITR791(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This application involves the interpretation of section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950. The question arises in this way. 2. For the assessment years 1357F. and 1358F. the petitioner, who was the resident of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, was assessed to income-tax. The Income-tax Officer, Raichur, who had the authority to make the assessment made the assessments on August 20, 1951, determining the tax payable by the petitioner for the year 1357F. to be Rs. 5,042 and for the year 1358F. Rs. 11,369. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer were modified. The tax payable according to the order of the Tribunal for the year 1357F. was Rs. 1,437 and for the year 1358F. it was Rs. 2,953. During the pendency of these appeals, the petitioner having committed default in the payment of the tax determined by the Income-tax Officer, penalties were imposed on him by the Income-tax Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Amargundappa Arali Oil Miller, Gangavti Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant70; AIR1962Mys70
Samantha Iyer, J.(1) This application involves the interpretation of Section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950. The question arises in this way.(2) For the assessment years 1357 F. and 1358 F., the Petitioner who was the resident of the wrest while State of Hyderabad, was assessed to income-tax. The Income-tax Officer, Raichur who had the authority to make the assessment made the assessments on August 20 1951, determining the tax payable by the petitioner for the year 1357, F., to be Rs. 5,042/- and for the year 1358 F., Rs. 11,369/- . In the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer were modified. The tax payable , according to the order of the Tribunal, for the year 1358 F. It was Rs. 1,437/- and for the year 1358 F. it was Rs. 2,953/- . During the pendency of these appeals the petitioner having committed default in the payment of the tax determined by the Income-tax Officer, penalties were imposed on him...
Tag this Judgment!N. Balakrishna Hegde Vs. K. Shankara Hegde and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant233; AIR1962Mys233
Narayana Pal, J.(1) The point of controversy in this Writ Petition is the propriety of an order of appointment made in respect of the office of the patel of Anjar village, Udipi Taluk, South Kanara District. The last holder of the office, Narayana Hegde, died on the 16th of September, 1956. After his death, the petitioner Balkrishna Hegde, who is a member of his Aliya Santhana family, and the first respondent Shankara Hegde who is the son of deceased Narayana Hegde, were competing applicants for the appointment to the post rendered vacant by the death of Narayana Hegde. The Revenue Divisional Officer by his order dated 10th of September, 1957 appointed the petitioner to the vacant post. Upon appeal by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and appointed the first respondent to the vacant post. In so appointing the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner accepted the contention of the first respondent that a...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Seshagiri Pai and Co. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of South Kan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1961
Reported in: ILR1961KAR214; [1961]12STC629(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of an oil mill extracting coconut oil in Mangalore town and he prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent who is the Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara, exercising the functions of the South Kanara Market Committee under the provisions of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933, to forbear from levying and collecting cess by way of sales tax on coconuts and copra purchased by the petitioner for the production of coconut oil, which the respondent demanded of him under the provisions of section 11 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act. 2. That section was first amended by Madras Act XXXIII of 1955 and was further amended by Mysore Act 20 of 1958. In its present form that section reads : '(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the general sales tax law for the time being in force, the market committee shall levy a cess by way of sales tax on any commercial crop bought or sold in the notified area at the rates s...
Tag this Judgment!Kallopant Shripadrao Vs. Sushila Kallopant
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Kant202; AIR1961Mys202
ORDER1. The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, has submitted his report in pursuance of this Court's order that an enquiry be made into the pauperism of the Petitioner. He is of the opinion that the Petitioner is without sufficient means to pay the prescribed fee and that her case of pauperism is true.2. When after the receipt of the report the matter came up before this Court the question arose for consideration whether all that this Court had to do was to transmit the report of the Court below to the Supreme Court or to arrive at its own conclusion on the question of pauperism with the aid of the report submitted by the Court below forward that opinion to the Supreme Court While on the one hand it was urged that what was contemplated by Rule 4 of Order XIV of the Supreme Court Rules was that either the High Court could itself inquire into the pauperism of the Petitioner or in the alternative cause an enquiry to be made by a subordinate Court and that there was nothing in th...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Seshagiri Pai and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant1; AIR1962Mys1; [1961]12STC626(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The petitioner is the owner of an oil mill extracting coconut oil in Mangalore town and he prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent who is this deputy commissioner of South ....... 1962 Mysore D. F. A. kanara, exercising the functions of the South Kanara Market Committee under the provisions of The Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933, to for bear from levying and collecting cess by way of sales-tax. On coconuts and copra purchased by the petitioner for the production of coconut of oil, which the respondent demanded of him under the provisions of S. 11 of the Madras commercial Crops Markets Act.(2) That section was first amended by Madras Act XXXIII of 1955 and was further amended by Mysore Act 20 of 1958. In its present form that section reads:(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the general sales tax law for the time being in force, the market committee shall levy a cess by way of sales tax on any commercial crop brought or sold in the noti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »