Karnataka Court January 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C. Mallarappa and Sons Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC400(Kar)
ORDER1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in raw wool. The State wants to assess him for the purchase of raw wool in the State of Myself during the period commencing from 25th October, 1957, and ending with 11th November, 1958. The petitioner contends that in view of section 7 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act (Act No. 25 of 1957), as it stood before its amendment in 1959, he is not liable to pay any tax in respect of his purchases during the period in question. His contention has been negatived by the authorities below and therefore he is before this Court. 3. Act 25 of 1957 came into force on 1st October, 1957. The charging section in that Act is section 5. Section 5(1) provides : 'Every dealer shall pay for each year tax on his total turnover at the rate of two per cent. of such turnover.' 4. Certain exceptions are provided for in that section. The exception material for our purpose is the one laid down in sub-section (3)(b) of sec...
M.G. Brothers Vs. Shah Tolchand Parswachand and Co. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys147
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order made by the District Judge of Bellary, under the provisions of Rule 8 or Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the following circumstances :2. The petitioner in this revision petition brought a suit against respondent 2 in the Court of fits Subordinate Judge of Kurnool, for the recovery of Rs. 5811-72 nP., and obtained from that Court an order for the attachment of a lorry which according to him, belonged to respondent 2. The Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, made an order far the attachment of the lorry and since the lorry was in the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Bellary, the order of attachment was sent to the District Court of Bellary, for execution. The District Court caused the attachment to be made under the provisions of Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereupon, respondent 1 in this revision petition claiming to be the owner of the lorry, made an applica...
B.R. Rangaswamy and ors. Vs. Upparige Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Kant189; AIR1962Mys189
(1) The only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the alienation in favour of the respondent effected on 3-3-1949 by Nanjundiah is hit by the doctrine of is pendens. (2) The material facts are as follows : (3) The appellants-- defendants sued the afore mentioned Nanjundian M.O.S. No. 126/45-46 on the file of the Munsiff at Hassan seeking partition and possession of three-fourth share in the southern half of survey No. 21/1 of Kittanakere village to the plaintiff -respondent. At the time of the sale in question, a Civil Revision Petition arising form O.S. No. 126/45-46 was pending in the High Court. In the High Court, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint by substituting the northern portion other S. No. 21/1 in the place of the southern portion originally mentioned. The application Fundamental Rules amendment was allowed and the amendment in question was made on 4-8-1949. The respondent was not a pretty either to O.S. No. 126/45-46 or to C. R.P....
Jayaram and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Kant31; AIR1962Mys31; ILR1961KAR349
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner in Cr, R. P. 373/1961 is the owner of a van which was registered as a motor car, as spoken to by P.W. 1 who is the Sub-Inspector of Motor Squad. The petitioner in Cr. R. P. 374/1961 is his driver.2. The prosecution case was that the motor car owned by the petitioner in Cr. R. P. 373/1961 was used by the petitioners for carrying passengers on hire and that therefore, an offence had been committed by the owner punishable Under Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the driver bad committed an offence punishable Under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Section 42(1) on which the prosecution depends, reads:42. Necessity for permits.-(1) No owner of a transport vehicle shall use the vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed Regional or State Transport Authority or the commission authorising the use of the vehicle in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: * * * *If...
C. Ramanujan Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Kant196; AIR1962Mys196
ORDER(1) The petitioner in this case who is a Havaldar in the Madras Engineering Group, Ulsoor and who is therefore an employee in the Indian army, was charged with having committed the murder of one Tatachari, a Subedar in that army unit on November 1, 1961. The information about this murder was communicated by one Captain Yedav, another officer in that army on November 2, 1961, and this information reached the concerned Magistrate on November 3, 1961. After the investigation was completed by the police, a charge sheet was placed before the Magistrate on November 22, 1961. On December 8, 1961, the officer commanding the army in which the petitioner was serving, made an application to the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Army Act asking for the delivery of the petitioner to him so that he may be tried by a Court -martial. The magistrate gave the officer commanding, the order which he wanted, and it is against this order that the petitioner complains in this revision petition.(2) It ...
Reference Under Section 438 Cr. Pc in Venkavva Vs. Chennappa Mahalinga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Kant26; AIR1962Mys26; ILR1961KAR198
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference has its source in proceedings commenced Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by one Venkayva, claiming to be the wife of one Channappa. Channappa who resisted the application filed by Venkavva for maintenance, pleaded that the marriage between him and Venkavva had become dissolved under a document executed by Venkavva on March 24, 1960. The Magistrate refused to investigate into the question whether there had been a divorce between Venkavva and Channappa and thought that until Channappa obtained a decree from a competent civil court that the marriage between him and Venkavva had become dissolved, Venkavva was entitled to ask the criminal court to make a decree for maintenance Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In this reference made by the Sessions Judge, at the instance of Channappa, it is pointed out by the Sessions Judge that the Magistrate could not have declined to make an investigation into the plea o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›