Karnataka Court October 1965 Judgments
State of Mysore Vs. Anantreddy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys210; 1966CriLJ932; (1965)2MysLJ786
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This reference has for its source a revision petition which was presented by 31 accused to the District Magistrate, Gulbarga before whom the complaint ventilated was that there was non-compliance with the provisions of S. 207-A(4) of Cr.P.C. by the committing Magistrate. What the committing Magistrate was to examine only one witness to the actual commission of the offence alleged, without insisting upon the production of the other witnesses to the commission of the offence.(2) It was urged before the District Magistrate that the committing Magistrate was under a statutory duly to examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence and that the transgression of the statutory duly vitiated the order of commitment.(3) In this court Mr. Jagannath Setty, the learned Advocate for the accused, depends upon Kirmal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1965CriLJ636 and Urges that the order of committal should be vacated.(4) The four principle which emerge from this pronou...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash and anr. Vs. Workmen of Indra Bhavan (Boarding and Lodging) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ471Kant
Hegde, J.1. In the petition, under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray that this Court may be pleased to quash the award made by respondent 2 in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 1964 on his file for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 2. The petitioners are partners of a firm known as Indra Bhavan. It is a boarding and lodging establishment. For the year 1962-63, there was a dispute between the management and the employees of that establishment as to the quantum of bonus payable to the employees. The management paid the employees two month's wages as bonus. But the employees were not satisfied with that payment. Thereafter, the management and the workmen entered into an agreement on 13 November, 1963, agreeing to refer that dispute, under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' to the presiding officer of the labour court, Bangalore, for decision. In that agreement, they agreed to abide by th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Zahirabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ921
A.R. Somanath Iyer, J.1. Johra Bee, a young woman, thirty years of age, and her husband Mohammed Sadiq who was five years older than his wife, were both residents or the village of Muttangi in the District of Gulbarga. According to the evidence of P.W. 1, a Police constable attached to the Police station in Chincholi, the dead body of Mohammed Sadiq was found at 2 A.M. in the night of 4.3.1964 inside a waiting room attached to the bus stand in Chincholi P.W. 1 was then in the company of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 who were assisting P.W. 1 on his beats since there was a scare in Chincholi caused by thefts.2. The dead body of Mohammed Sadiq was subjected to post-mortem examination by P.W. 10, a Medical Officer of Chincholi on 6.3.1964. He observed on the body one incised wound on the right parietal region, a lacerated wound on the back of the skull and on dissection he found a horizontal fracture of the occipital bone besides hemorrhage in the right cerebral region and the back of the brain. He wa...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Venkatachalapathi Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant323; AIR1966Mys323; (1966)1MysLJ21
Chandrashekar, J.1. In the Writ Petition out of which this reference to the Full Bench has arisen, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Revenue Authorities directing him to pay additional stamp duty and penalty on an instrument executed in his favour. The Division Bench before which the Writ Petition camp up for hearing has referred to the Full Bench, the following question:--'Whether the deed in question is a release deed falling within Article 44 of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, or whether it is a conveyance falling under Article 19 of that Act.'(2) The necessary implication of this question, I think is whether the instrument is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 44 of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, or under Article 19 of that Act.(3) The instrument in question is styled as a deed of release and was executed on 12-3-1962 the instrument as the first party and M.A. Venkatachalapthy, referred to as the second party who is the petitioner in this Writ Petition.(4) The preamble po...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Factory, Hubli Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1965
Reported in: ILR1966KAR180; (1966)1MysLJ135; [1966]18STC43(Kar)
Hegde, J.1. These are references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The two references raise identical questions of law. The same assessee has filed these two applications. Hence, they will be dealt with together. The questions of law referred for the opinion of this Court are these : (i) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli, in the assessee's case for the half-year ending 30th September, 1957, is barred by limitation (ii) Whether the failure on the part of the assessing authority to issue a notice under section 15 of the 'Act' has vitiated the assessment (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the assessment under section 14(5) of the 'Act' was permissible in the eye of law, in the assessee's case and (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the assessee's failure to furnis...
Tag this Judgment!Chamaraja Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant21; AIR1967Mys21; ILR1966KAR170; (1966)1MysLJ119
Hegde, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner requires this Court to issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to admit him to one or the other of the Medical Colleges run by the Slate.2. He passed his P. U. C. Examination in the Mysore University in the Examination held in April last. In that Examination, he secured 176 marks in his optional subjects. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee At the interview, he secured 21 marks. Therefore, the total marks secured by him are 197 He belongs to a socially and educationally Backward Class. The last student admitted to the Mysore Medical College from a socially and educationally Backward Class had secured 210 marks. Therefore, quite clearly, on the basis of the Rules relating to the admission to Medical Colleges, the petitioner is not entitled to a seat. This much is conceded on behalf of the petitioner.3. But it was strenuously urged on be half of the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Neelkanthgouda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mys5; 1967CriLJ96
ORDER1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, Raichur, under Section 438 Cr. P C. against the orders of the First Class Magistrate, Deodurg dated 19-11-64 discharging the respondents (accused) of ihe offence under Section 396 I. P. C. and dated 16-2-1965 acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 379, 341, 342 and 323. I. P. C. in case No. 20/2 of 1964.2. The Police of Jalhsdli in Dcodurg Taluk, Raichur District filed a charge sheet against the respondents for offences under Sections 395, 341, 342 and 323. I. P. C. on the allegation that on 17-3-64 of about 10.30 P. M. they heat one Ayyuppa (P. W. 1) and forcibly removed from his person, a wrist watch, a gold chain, a silver 'Lingadakui'. a torch and a sum of Rs. 45. The learned Magistrate held an enquiry under Section 207-A, Cr. P. C. He recorded the evidence of three witnesses and after considering the evidence and documents referred to in Section 173 Cr. P. C., came to the conclusion that the evidence and do...
Tag this Judgment!H.J. Siddappa Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant67; AIR1967Mys67; (1966)1MysLJ301
K.S. Hegde, J.1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that a writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of a Mandamus be issued to the respondents requiring them to admit him to one or the other of the (Medical Colleges run by the State of Mysore. 2. The petitioner passed his Pre-University Course Examination in the Mysore University in April last. In that examination, he secured 54 per cent in Physics, 79 per cent in Chemistry and 48 per cent in Biology, thus making a total of 181 marks out of 300. Admittedly, he belongs to a Socially and Educationally Backward Class. His application for admission to one of the Medical Colleges was rejected. As he is a Mysore University student, his application was considered only in respect of seats allotted to the Mysore Medical College. As mentioned earlier, he had secured 181 marks in his Optional subject in the P. U. C. Examination. He had secured 22 marks in the interview. Thus the total marks obt...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lagama Appayya Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ483
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. In the village of Katabali in the District of Belgaum, there were four (sic) brothers and two sisters who lived either in different parts of the same house or in different houses. Shettappa. Yellappa and Erappa were the three brothers; Satyavva and Lakkavva were the two sisters.2. In the same village, there lived two brothers accused 1 and 4. There were two other brothers accused 2 and 3. Accused 1 and 4 were the cousins of accused 2 and 3. They were living in separate houses very near one another. 13. Shettappa, Yellappa and Erappa belong to the first mentioned family and the four accused belong to the second. The four accused were charged before the Court of Session with more than one offence, Shettappa and Yellappa were killed, as the prosecution evidence discloses, in the night of August 3, 1963 in their village and in respect of those murders, the four accused were tried before the Court of Session not only in respect of those murders but also in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sunkaiah Vs. Town Panchayat Kottur and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant150; AIR1967Mys150; (1966)1MysLJ12
Sadasivayya, J.1. The petitioner is a cinema Exhibitor doing business under the name and style of Renuka Talkies at Kottur in Bellary District. The first respondent viz., the Town Panchayat Kottur, issued a demand notice to the petitioner, by which it demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 2552/- by way of entertainment tax, levied on the basis of Rs. 2/-per cinema show with effect from 1-1-1961 (In the writ petition the date of this notice has been mentioned as 9-12-1960. But in the course of the argument, it transpired that the correct date of this notice is 12-10-1962. An application for making an amendment correcting the date has been filed on behalf of the petitioner).The first respondent the Punch had at had, by its resolution of 13-12-1960, decided to levy this tax, at the rate of Rs. 2/- per show, as from 1-1-1961. It was in consequence of this resolution followed up by a notice dated 14-12-1960, stated to have been published under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Mysore Taxes and Fees ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »