Karnataka Court December 1969 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.
A.K. Swamy and Brothers Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MysLJ258; [1970]25STC227(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. These two revision petitions preferred under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') relate to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The petitioner who is a manufacturer of seat covers for scooters, supplies scooter seat covers made on rexine cloth to Messrs Stan Lucas Services, who are dealers in Vespa Scooters. The assessing authority has levied tax on the turnover of the seat covers at 7 per cent. under serial No. 73 of the Second Schedule of the Act. The petitioner contended that the articles sold by him do not fall within serial No. 73 of the Second Schedule of the Act but under section 5(1) of the Act, under which the tax is charged at 2 per cent. of the turnover. 2. The question for decision is whether the scooter seat covers come within serial No. 73 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Serial No. 73 of the Second Schedule reads thus : 'Articles (including rubber and other tyres and tubes and batteries) a...
Bheemappa Bhemappa Korawar and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ125
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, C.J.1. The accused were charged with only two offences punishable under 8s. 457 and 380 of the Penal Code, but, there was no conviction with respect to any of those offences and instead there was a conviction in respect of an offence punishable Under Section 414 of the Penal Code. That offence is committed only if a person assists in concealing or disposing the property which he knew or had reason to believe to be stolen property.2. Although, the chargesheet stated that an offence Under Section 414 of the Penal code had also been committed by the accused, the Magistrate framed no charge with respect to that offence. That being so and since the ingredients of an offence punishable Under Section 414 are not the ingredients of an offence punishable Under Section 380 or 457 of the Penal Code, and since there can be no conviction Under Section 414 of the Penal Code unless the accused voluntarily assist the concealment or disposal of property which they knew or had re...
K. Rathnam Vs. K.N. Somanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mys267; 1970CriLJ1507; (1970)1MysLJ368
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by one Ratnam, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, dated 28-10-1965, by which he confirmed the order of the Additional First Munsiff, Mysore. 2. The facts leading to the petition are briefly these: One Somanna, respondent herein, obtained a money decree against Ratnam and two persons in O.S. No. 921 of 1963 on the file of the First Munsiff, Mysore. Somanna filed execution case No. 677 of 1965 on the file of the Additional First Munsiff, Mysore. This was in November 1905. Ratnam filed objections stating, inter alia,that the decretal amount had been adjustedon 18-7-1964 by an agreement between the parties and therefore the execution case was liable to be dismissed. Somanna denied execution of the agreement and the decree being satisfied. The objection of Ratnam was overruled by the learned Munsiff on the ground that the adjustment, even if true, as pleaded...
Veerabhadrappa Chigateri Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR666(KAR); [1970]77ITR666(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 64(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as it is stood before amendment. The question of law referred for our opinion is : 'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 33,000 is liable to be charged in respect of the alleged jewellery owned by the deceased ?' 2. One Sri Murigappa Chigateri died on January 12, 1957, and his son is the accountable person under the Estate Duty Act, and therefore, he filed a statement of account declaring the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 2,65,904. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Bangalore, determined the net principal value of the estate at Rs. 5,64,304. In arriving at the said value, the Assistant Controller included, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 33,000 alleged to be the value of the jewellery in the possession of the deceased at the time of his death. In the estate duty return the accountable person had shown the value of the jewellery in the possession of decease...
C. Krishna Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR115(KAR); [1970]76ITR115(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The following three questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for our opinion. '(1) In the case of a lease of a vacant site with right of reversion to the lessor of the superstructure after the expiry of the lease, whether for the purpose of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal is justified in law in deeming the lessor as the owner of the superstructure and the other rights even before the expiry of the lease (2) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, in the case of valuation of the property let out to the Indian Bank, whether the valuation adopted by the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an 'individual' for the assessment year 1963-64 ?' 2. Question No. 1 does not...
N. Sreepadachar Vs. Vasantha Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant232; AIR1970Mys232; ILR1969KAR690
Santhosh, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, rejecting the petition filed by him for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The appellant's case is that he was married to the respondent on 3-7-1953. After living for a short while in Hubli, he was transferred to Mysore in April 1954, and thereafter, they were residing in Mysore City. The respondent had a very irritable temper and a foul tongue. She quarrelled with the appellant over trivial matters and on account of her quarrels and abuses, the appellant had to spend sleepless nights many a time. The respondent used to abuse the appellant in the foulest language and used to behave towards him in public most insultingly. She used to subject him to humiliation and shame in the eyes of the public and make him a laughing stock in the locality and feel very miserable. She used to hold out threats of consisting suicide and the appe...
In Re: B.V. Padmanabha Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mys254; 1970CriLJ1502
A.R. Somnath Iyer, C.J.1. In the Branch post office at Toppada Bagur in the District of Bangalore, the accused who is the appellant before me was the branch post master. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge of an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code and of an offence of forgery punishable under Section 467 and sentenced him. to two years' rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the two charges. 2. According to the prosecution case P. W. 8 Hussain Khan who is the brother-in-law of P. W. 7 Hayathbi remitted a sum of Rs. 50/- from Bombay to P. W. 7 by money order on May 6, 1965. P. W. 7 Hayatbi was a resident of Govindpur which was within the area of the branch post office at Toppada Bagur, and so, the money order was received for remittance in that post office. 3. P. W. 1 Mariyappa, it is not disputed went in search of P. W. 7 to pay the amount to her, but since she was not in Govindpur he brought back the money to the Post office and h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›