Karnataka Court June 1961 Judgments
T. Sadashiviah Vs. D. Mahadev
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant132; AIR1962Mys132; (1961)IILLJ586Kant
Hegde, J .(1) The true scope of S. 1(3)(a) of the Employee's Provident Funds Act ( which we shall herein after refer to as the 'Act') comes up for consideration in this appeal.(2) The fact are not in dispute in this case:(3) The accused is the Proprietor of Chandiram Mysore Silk Mills in Bangalore City. He was running the Mills in question when the Act came into force and at that time he was employing more than 50 persons in his Mills. Therefore, he was required to contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund ( to be referred to as 'Fund' herein after) and he contributed to that Fund till 1-2-1956. Thereafter he failed to contribute to the Fund. In the present case, the charge, against him is that he failed to contribute to the fund from 1-6-1956 to 1-8-1956 and failed to submit necessary returns and therefore he is liable to be punished under Paragraph 76 (a) and (C) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The accused has not denied the fact that he had failed to contribute to t...
Tag this Judgment!ShiravanThe Ananda Rao Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ262Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted for an offence punishable under S. 45 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to also as the Mysore Act), read together with S. 11(1) of the same Act and he had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 and in default to undergo two days' simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for an offence punishable under rule 40 read with rule 37(11) of the rules framed under the Mysore Act and he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 and in default to undergo two days' simple imprisonment. Sri Raghunathan has appeared for the petitioner and Sri B. S. Keshava Ayyangar, the learned High Court Government Pleader, has appeared for the State. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has urged only one contention before me. It is to the effect that the conviction under S. 45 read with S. 11(1) of the Mysore Act cannot be sustained in law. His argument is that by virtue of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act...
Tag this Judgment!Government by the Police of Bagewadi Vs. Mallappa Shivappa Jadar and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ562
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1.This reference Under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijapur, under the following circumstances:2. The two respondents were the accused before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagewadi, in Criminal Case No. 36/57 on the file of that Magistrate. The case against them was to the effect that they both trespassed into the land of P.W. I Rachappa and had caused hurt to him. Both the accused pleaded not guilty; the learned Magistrate, after trial, found that both the accused persons were guilty of offences Under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code; he convicted them for both the offences and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in respect of each offence and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten days.Againstthe said conviction and sentence, both the accused persons preferred revision to the Sessions Judge, Bijapur; that was In Criminal Revision Application No. 10/00 on...
Tag this Judgment!Members of Kuruba Community of Hariharahalli Etc. Vs. Siddarame Gowda ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ177
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Shimoga Division; it is under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Briefly stated, the facts which have given, occasion to the present reference, are as follows:2. Among certain members of the Kurubar Community who are stated to have been residents of Basavanahalli, Hampapura and other villages, and five members who are stated to have been the Pujaries or the Archaks of two deities known as Dodda Beeralinge Devaru and Chikka Beera Linge Deyaru, there was a dispute pertaining to the, custody of the idol of one of the two deities, namely, Dodda Beeralingaswami. In consequence of this dispute, the said five Pujaries wanted to retain the idol of Dodda Beeralingaswami deity at Beeranahalli. It is stated that that idol had been taken there temporarily and had been Judged in the Lakshmi temple, Several members of the Kurubar community of the above said villages wanted this idol to be removed from the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Isak Saheb and ors. Vs. NajaruddIn Shamansaheb Mulla and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant253; AIR1962Mys253
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The respondents filed on the 13th of October 1950, Special Civil Suit No. 142 of 1950, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Belgaum, against the original appellants 1 and 2 and others, for recovery of possession with mesne profits of the lands comprised in Section Nos. 43/2 and 44/2 of Shindoli village, Belgaum Taluk. This basis of the claim made in the plaint was that the lands had been granted to the ancestors of the respondents as Mullagiri service inam lands in ancient times by one of the Badshahs of Bijapur for performance of Mullagiri services to the village community of Shindoli, that the lands were inalienable by the terms of the grant and that, therefore, the alienation thereof by the respondents grandfather Rajesaheb by way of sale on the 4th of February, 1914, in favour of Nadirsaheb Fakruddin Killedar, father of the original second appellant and father-in-law of the first appellant, was unauthorised, void and conveyed no title whatever....
Tag this Judgment!B. Shah Mahmood Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR55(KAR); [1963]47ITR55(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This writ petition is directed against proceedings commenced under the provisions of section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the recovery from the petitioner of a sum of money stated to be due by way of income-tax from the estate of one Bademiya who was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52. 2. The assessment proceedings commenced during the lifetime of Bademiya, who, however, died before the assessment order was made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on March 29, 1956. Bademiya, it is not disputed, was doing his business under the name and style of Nizamia Oil Mills and he was assessed as an individual. 3. Bademiya left behind him two sons and a daughter. The assessment order made in respect of his income was appealed against by only one of his two sons who was able to obtain some little relief from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a little more from the Income-tax Tribunal. 4. On March 29, 1956, on the ve...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Gangadakargowdugala Subbegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ711
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. This reference Under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the District Magistrate of Coorg arises under the following circumstances :In proceedings Under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Personal Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Executive First Class Magistrate, Coorg (hereinafter referred to as the Executive First Class Magistrate), had ordered Under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the respondent to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 5oo/- for good behaviour for a period of three months together with one surety for a like sum. The respondent having failed to give such security was committed to prison by the Executive First Class Magistrate for a period of three months.The District Magistrate of Coorg has taken the view that by the reason of Government Order No. 1438-57-Cts. 18-56-4, D/- 29-5-1956, under which the scheme of separation of Judiciary from the Executive was introduced to Coorg, the Executive First ...
Tag this Judgment!Raglivender Rao Vs. Botlagunts Laxminarasayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant89; AIR1962Mys89
ORDER(1) The petitioner- plaintiff has presented this petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 28th of April 1958, passed the Munsiff Magistrate of Raichur in Case No. 11/2 of 1958 on his file.(2) The facts leading up to this petition may shortly he stated as follows:(3) The respondent - defendant obtained a money decree against he petitioner-of on 10th July 1957 in O. S. No. 237 of 1956 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kavali of Andhra Pradesh. Since the petitioner - plaintiff resided within the jurisdiction of the Raichur Court , the decree-holder got the decree transferred to Raichur Court and started execution proceedings by a petition dated 11th April 1958. The petitioner-plaintiff than on 12.4.1958, filed a suit No. 11/2 of 1958 in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate of Raichur for a declaration that the expert decree obtained by the respondent -defendant against him was null and void and not execution of the decree until the decision of...
Tag this Judgment!Puttaiah (K.N.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ589Kant
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No. 5028 of 1959 on the file of the Second City Magistrate, Mysore. The accused was a brass and copperware merchant in Mysore. The charge against the accused was that at about midnight, on 31 December 1958, the accused had kept open his shop and was actually found to be loading a lorry with bags containing vessels. It was alleged that he had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 45(1) read together with Section 7(1) of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The learned magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence and has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to suffer simple Imprisonment for one week. Aggrieved by mete said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this revision petition.2. Sri V.K. Govindarajulu who has appeared for the petitioner has argued that even if the whole of the prosecution case is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›