Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant211; AIR1968Mys211
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) In the village of Bukkambhudhi in the district of Chickmagalur, there was a Hindu joint family composed of four brothers who belonged to a family of goldsmiths. Defendant 1 Deveerachar is one of the four brothers, and between those four brothers, there was a partition on April 22, 1927 recorded in Exhibit P-1. There was again another partition between Deveerachar and his brother Paniachar on September 24, 1938, which is recorded in Exhibit P-3 presumably for the reason that notwithstanding the earlier partition, a further partition between them became necessary. But, with that we are not concerned very much in this appeal.(2) Deveerachar is defendant 1 in the suit out of which this appeal arises, and he has four sons. Defendant 2 is his first son; the plaintiff is his second son and defendants 3 and 4 are his third and fourth sons. The plaintiff is an advocate of this court. Defendant 3 is an engineer is Government service and defendant 4 who acquired an engineering...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Mys199; 1967CriLJ1534
H. Hombe Gowda, C.J. 1. This revision petition is filed under Sections 215 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obviously a mistake andit is not applicable) for (finishing of the order, dated 10-1-1967, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, Ex. 6, in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1966 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners (accused) to quash the committal order, dated 18-11-1966, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Ranebennur, in C. C. No. 630 of 1966 2. A charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was placed against the petitioners accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranebennur, in C. C. No. 630 of 1966. The learned Magistrate proceeded to deal with the case under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure When the learned Magistrate, was considering the papers filed under Section 173, Cr. P. C. a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant42; AIR1968Mys42; (1967)2MysLJ474
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The petitioners in these writ petitions are operating iron mines within the State of Mysore upon lease granted by the State Government subject to payment of royalty and other conditions stipulated in relevant leases. These writ petitions have been heard together because all of them raise the same question of the validity or constitutionality of the Iron Ore Mines Labour Welfare Cess Act (Central Act58 of 1961) and also because the arguments in support of that contention are same or similar. The common prayer in all these petitions is for declaration of the invalidity of the statute with the consequential relief of quashing certain demands made pursuant to the said Act.(2) The Act is a short one containing only eight sections. It is described as an Act to provide for the levy and collection of a cess on iron ore for the financing of activities to promote the welfare of labour employed in the iron ore mining industry. The first section sets out the name of the Act, it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant293; AIR1969Mys293
ORDER1. The question for decision in C.R.P. 909 of 1965 is whether the respondent (defendant) is an agriculturist's Relief Act.2. The petitioner before this Court was the plaintiff in O. S. 593/63 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga. The plaintiff brought the suit against defendant (respondent) on two pronotes for Rs. 390 dated 15-7-1957. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant was an agriculturist both at the time when the suit pronotes were executed and also at the time the suit was instituted.It may be mentioned that the suit was instituted on 20th September 1963. The plaintiff relied on the extended period of limitation given by S. 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Munsiff held that the defendant was no an agriculturist as per the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the benefit of the extended period of limitation under Section 24 of the said Act and dismissed the suit. This revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant114; AIR1969Mys114; 1969CriLJ496
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 193 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bijapur, and sentenced to suffer one year's R. I. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Bijapur, the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced to three months' R. I. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the said order of the Sessions Judge confirming her conviction.2. In P. R. Case No. 5/1963, in a proceeding under section 512 Cr.P.C. the petitioner examined as a witness by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Bagewadi, and made a certain statement on oath. When the petitioner was examined in the committal proceedings in P. R. Case No. 2/65, she made another statement wholly irreconcilable and contradictory to the previous statement. After issuing show cause notice, the learned Magistrate directed that a complaint be filed against the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)1MysLJ539; [1967]20STC364(Kar)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. For the period 9th November, 1961 to 28th October, 1962, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax although her total turnover was much below Rs. 7,500. In the ordinary course, by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, she would not have been liable to tax at all. But on the admitted facts that she was a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and had purchased goods on declarations under section 8(4) thereof, the assessing authority applied sub-section (2) of section 5 to the case and imposed tax. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took a different view and set aside the assessment. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, has set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored that of the original assessing authority. This appeal is directed against the said order of the Commissioner. 2. The question turns exclusively on the interpretation of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1967]20STC25(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The only question for consideration which is common to these six petitions is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as right in taking the view that handlooms are machinery and that parts thereof sold in the course of business are liable to sales tax as falling within entry 20 of Schedule II of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. During the six assessment years concerned in these petitions, the petitioner had sold certain items which are prescribed as spare parts of handlooms. It is stated, however, that some of the items may not fall accurately within the description of spare parts or parts of the machinery itself, but may fall within the description of or more appropriately be described as 'accessories'. During the period relevant to these assessments, entry 20 of Schedule II brought under tax only spare parts but not accessories. The word 'accessories' was subsequently added by an amendment. Hence the additional argument on behalf of the petitioner is that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1967KAR749; (1967)1MysLJ432; [1967]20STC89(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. The common question raised in all these writ petitions relates to the validity of rule 39-A added to the Mysore Sales Tax Rules in November 1962. 2. The petitioners in all these cases deal in hides and skins. These are declared goods within the meaning of the Central Sales Tax Act and are liable to single point levy of tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the said State Act. 3. Because the goods are declared goods, as of importance from the point of view of inter-State trade, tax thereon payable under the Central Act as well as several State Acts is controlled by the provisions of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. That section reads as follows :- '15. Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. - Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of declared go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant115; AIR1968Mys115; (1967)2MysLJ185
(1) The appellant is a husband whose application against his wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, was dismissed by the Civil Judge, (After stating the facts in paras 2 and 3, the judgment proceeded :-)(2) The only two witnesses who gave evidence in the proceeding are the two spouses. (After discussing the evidence in Paras, 4, 5, 6 and 7, their Lordships observed).(3) However that may be, the fact remains that after the spouses lived together happily for five or six years, their marriage went on the rocks. We should ask ourselves why the matrimonial career of the spouses was wrecked in that way. An important piece of evidence which provides us with the key to the solution is the evidence of the husband and that given by the wife that after the wife went to her parent's house there was a complaint against the husband to the police charging him with cruelty. The husband admitted--and that is the effect of what he stated--th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant239; AIR1967Mys239; (1967)1MysLJ341
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal preferred under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is whether a public trust was created by an award which became transformed into a decree by which a partition was made between two persons who belonged to a Hindu joint family. The appellant's father Chanmallappa was one of them and the respondent Kadepna is the other. The award bv the arbitrators was made on December 24, 1934. and it became subsequently transmuted into decree of the civil court In Order Section 60 of 1935. in the Court of the Civil Judge of Belgaum.2. The relevant provision in the decree provides for the utilisation of the income from one part of the property which belonged to the joint family for a certain religious purpose to which we shall presently refer. That land was therefore, not partitioned and the decree stated that the seniormost member in the senior branch of the family should perform the duties enjoined in that way.3. After the ...
Tag this Judgment!