Karnataka Court February 1966 Judgments
The State of Mysore Vs. Krishnacharya Appacharya Jahagirdar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mys79; 1967CriLJ635; ILR1966KAR961; (1966)1MysLJ618
ORDER1. This is a reference made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur at the instance of the applicant accused Krishnacharya Appacharya Jahagirdar recommending that the conviction of the said applicant by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indi-Sindgi, in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1965 be set aside.2. The original allegation against him was that while he was driving the State Transport bus No. MYF 4039 on 22-1-1965 at about 8-35 P. M., on the Hippargi Talikot Road, the bus did not have either the rear lamp burning or the destination board properly illuminated and that the applicant (driver) did not permit a police jeep No. MYJ 19 to overtake it as he should have. On these allegations, three accusations were made against him viz., contravention of Rule 181(1)(c)(i) and Rule 181(4) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Magistrate acquitted him of the third accusation, viz., failure to permit the j...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. Manavendra (B.K.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1966
Reported in: [1966(12)FLR434]; (1966)IILLJ463Kant; (1966)1MysLJ544
Per Tukol, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the Mysore Sugar Company, Ltd., under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the labour court, Bangalore, in the petitions filed by the first seven respondents purporting to be under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitions filed by the respondents were all heard together and the labour court came to the conclusion that respondents 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to this petition should be fitted in the supervisory staff A grade entitling them to the pay-scale of Rs. 300 - 600, that respondents 1 and 5, their assistants, should be 'treated at par with' them entitling them to draw pay in the scale of Rs. 200 - 400 and directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 5,520 to each of the first set of respondents and Rs. 3,696 to each of the second set of respondents, namely, 1 and 5. 2. The petitioner has impugned the legality and the propriety of this order ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Venkatesh Murthy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR244(KAR); [1966]62ITR244(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which, for convenience sake, hereinafter will be referred to as the 'Act'. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has submitted the question 'whether the assessments made under section 34(1) (a) of the 'Act' are valid for the opinion of this court as a question of law arising from its consolidated order made on November 13, 1962, in I. T. As. Nos. 9978 to 9981 of 1961-62 on its file. 3. On February 24, 1954, the assessee and six others started a new firm known as Murthy Silk House. Out of the seven partners of the firm, two, namely, Shantamma and Shivamma, are his wives, one was his father-in-law, another his step-sister and yet another his maternal aunt. In the deed of partnership, Shantamma and Shivamma were not described as wives of the assessee. On the other hand, they were described as daughters of Venkataramaniah and Puttashamiah, respectively. For the assessment years 1955-...
Tag this Judgment!international Cotton Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)1MysLJ703; [1966]17STC604(Kar)
Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal, under section 24(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (which will be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act') against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore, in C.T.R.P. No. 337 of 1963-64 on his file. That was an order made by the Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu powers under section 21(2)(i) of the 'Act', whereunder he revised the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle I, Hubli. The order in question relates to the assessment of the assessee, who is the appellant herein, for the assessment year 1957-58, the accounting period being 1st October, 1957, to 31st July, 1958. 2. It is admitted that during the accounting period, the assessee was dealing in cotton. From out of the cotton purchased by it during the accounting year, a portion of the cotton, i.e., of the value of Rs. 20,93,265, was not sold during that year. Only last purchases of the cotton within the State were exigible to tax, the levy being a single poi...
Tag this Judgment!The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Kant237; AIR1966Mys237; (1966)1MysLJ598
K.S. Hegde, J. (1) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 1054 of 1965 on the file of this Court has filed this petition seeking certificates under Articles 133(1)(a), 133(1)(b) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.(2) In the Writ petition in question, the petition's contention was that the Indian Express and the Sunday Standard Bangalore, are new newspapers newly added links to the Indian Express chain and therefore, it prayed that this'Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction: (1) forbidding respondents 1 to 3 from granting in Respondents 4, 5 and/or 6, for Indian Express and Sunday Standard, Bangalore, any newsprint or newsprint quota, the said papers being new newspapers added to the existing claim of Indian Express Newspapers; and (2) Forbidding respondents 4 and 5 their servants and agents and any of their subsidiary companies from diverting using or otherwise appropriating for Indian Express and/or Sunday Standard,...
Tag this Judgment!Andanayya Vs. Irayya and State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys239; 1966CriLJ1030; (1966)1MysLJ276
ORDER(1) The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(2) The properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 2094 and 2097 are adjacent to each other. C.T.S. No. 2097 belongs to the 1st respondent-accused. C.T.S. No. 2097 belonged to one Hampavva who died in the year 1958. The petitioner and his adoptive mother Baslingavva claimed succession to the suit house after Hampavva's death. One Virupayya asserted his claim to the said house. The dispute was therefore, referred to a panchayat. I directed Virupayya to go to a Court of law and have his right established therein, and in the meanwhile the house was to be in possession of the Panchayat. But, Virupayya died and one Chandrashekarayya filed a suit for possession of the house against the present petitioner but the said suit was withdrawn on November 4, 1960. On November 15, 1960, Andanayya the petitioner got possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suryanarayana (H.) Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (by Managing Direc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: [1966(12)FLR413]; (1967)ILLJ49Kant; (1966)1MysLJ465
ORDERPer Hedge, J. 1. The petitioner joined the Machine Tools Factory, a concern under the management of the Government of India, in 1952 as a clerk. In 1953, 'Hindustan Machine Tools, Ltd.' to be hereinafter referred to as the company was registered as a private limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The Government of India made over the Machine Tools Factory to the company. Originally, there were seven shareholders in the company. They were : (i) President of India, (ii) Secretary, Ministry of Production, (iii) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Production, (iv) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (v) Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Production, (vi) Under Secretary, Ministry of Production, and (vii) Oerlikon Machine Tools Works, Buchrle & Co., Zurich (Switzerland). 2. We understand that the shares of Buchrle & Co. had been purchased by the President of India. At present, all the shares of the company are held in the name of the President of India and some of the Secretaries ...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Narayana Setty Vs. Court of the Munsiff, Kolar by Its Presiding O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys243; 1966CriLJ1034; (1965)1MysLJ305
ORDER(1) The petitioner before this Court is the first accused in the Court of the First Class Magistrate Kolar, in C.C. No. 1151/63. A complaint was filed by the learned Munsiff of Kolar under Ss. 193, 465 and 467 read with Ss. 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and four other accused. The complaint discloses that the petitioner (1st accused in the lower Court) was the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings (Ex Case No. 597/58) for the recovery of Rs. 1,455-7-0 in the Court of the Munsiff Kolar. On 19-12-1958, the petitioner filed an application in the said execution proceedings alleging discharge and produced a forged receipt, Exhibit P-1, in support of the said discharge. Accused 2, 3 and 5 were the attestors to the said receipt. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the receipt and accused 4 was the scribe. The accused gave evidence in Court in support of the said receipt. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the receipt, Exhibit P-1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Criminal of Mysore Vs. Hanumantha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Kant271; AIR1966Mys271
Tukol, J.(1) These four references have been made by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga to quash the orders of commitment under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each of the cases, on the ground that the respondent or the respondents committed to his Court for trial have to be tried under the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of commitment in each of the cases in contrary to law. None of the respondents in any of the cases appeared after due notice. We therefore requested Mr. Malimath to appear as Amicus curiae.(2) There is no dispute that none of the respondents in these cases has attained the age of 16 years and is therefore a child as defined as Section 4(1)(f) of the Mysore Children Act, 1964. The sole ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has sought for the quashing of the order of commitment in each case is that the respondent or respondents are wholly triable by a Juvenile Court under the provisions of the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Hanumantha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1168
T.K. Tukol, J.1. These four references have been made by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga to quash the orders of commitment under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each of the cases, on the ground that the respondent or the respondents committed to his Court for trial have to be tried under the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of commitment in each of the cases is contrary to law. None of the respondents in any of the cases appeared after due notice. We therefore requested Mr. Malimath to appear as Amicus curiae.2. There is no dispute that none of the respondents in these cases has attained the age of 16 years and is therefore a child as defined in Section 4(1)(f) of the Mysore Children Act 1964. The sole ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has sought for the quashing of the order of commitment in each case is that the respondent or respondents are wholly triable by a Juvenile Court under the provisions of the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »