Karnataka Court February 1969 Judgments
M. Ratnamala Amma Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR238(KAR); [1970]75ITR238(Karn); (1969)2MysLJ253
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In the South Kanara District there was an Aliyasantana family composed of a certain Gummanna Shetty and his sister, Ratnamala, and her four children. Gummanna Shetty died on January 15, 1959, and Ratnamala, when called upon by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, produced an estate duty account in respect of the estate of the deceased. Ratnamala raised the contention when she produced the account that she was not liable to pay any estate duty for the reason that, on Gummanna Shetty's death, his wife and children inherited a sixth share in the property which belonged to the Aliyasantana family and that estate duty was payable only by those heirs in respect of that sixth share which passed to them on the death of Gummanna Shetty. 2. The Assistant Controller negatived the contention advanced by Ratnamala, who is the petitioner before us, that estate duty was payable only in respect of the sixth share which passed on the death of Gummanna Shetty. He was of the opinio...
Tag this Judgment!T. Narayanaswamy Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Kant276; AIR1971Mys276; (1970)2MysLJ121
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench as arising out of these Writ Petitions is as follows:--'Whether the term, 'existing permit-holders on inter-State routes' would mean only those who, on the date on which the approved scheme was published in the Gazette, were holders of permits (to operate on inter-State routes) granted by Transport Authorities of one State and also countersigned by Transport Authorities of the other State, under Section 63 of the M. V. Act, or whether that term would also include the holders of uncountersigned primary permits who, on that date had the right to operate on a part of an inter-State route and which part overlaps a notified route under the Scheme.'The circumstances in which the Writ petitions came to be filed and which gave rise to this reference to the Full Bench are briefly the following:--2. A scheme for nationalisation of Road Transport Services in respect of 87 specified routes in the District of Kolar and neighbouring Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaranarayana Rao (A.S.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1969
Reported in: [1970(20)FLR419]; (1970)ILLJ490Kant; (1969)1MysLJ494
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a hotelier in Hiriyur was convicted by the magistrate of an offence punishable under S. 30(1) of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act for disobedience to the provisions of S. 12(1) of that Act. The case of the prosecution was that the accused conducted the business in his hotel on 8 February, 1967 which was a weekly holiday for his hotel. The plea of the accused was that, although Wednesday was a notified weekly holiday for his hotel, there has been an alteration made by him in consequence of which Thursdays became weekly holidays and Wednesdays became working days. He asserted that intimation about this alteration was transmitted to the concerned labour inspector under S. 12(1) of the Act. 2. The magistrate was of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to notify the inspector about the alteration he made, before he gave effect to the alteration. The magistrate thought that, since the petitioner was running his hotel on 8 February,...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Keshavaiah Setty Vs. M. Ramayya Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MysLJ94
ORDER1. In respect of a controversy between the members of a Hindu Joint Family who submitted their disputes to the arbitrators appointed by them so that they might make an award, an award was made on April 18, 1964, and respondent 9 in this revision petition instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge Tumkur in Original Suit No. 40 of 1964 for the enforcement of the award. But he withdrew from that suit, the umpire produced the copy of the award before the Civil Judge on June 15, 1966 under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. The copy was produced since the original award had already been produced in Original Suit No. 40 of 1964 when a summons had been issued by the court for the production of the original award at the instance of respondent 9 in this revision petition.2. In the proceedings which commenced with the production of the copy of the award by the umpire a contention was raised by the petitioner in this revision petition that the production of the copy of the award b...
Tag this Judgment!Basha and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant277; AIR1969Mys277; 1969CriLJ1144; (1969)1MysLJ79
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the four accused who were convicted under Section 80 of the Mysore Police Act, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, each in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one month.2. The case of the prosecution was that the four petitioners were found engaged in gambling called 'ander-bahar' with stakes; the amount found then at the time of the raid was Rs. 35-90 Ps. They were found gambling in Room No. 49 of Eastern Lunch Home, situate at No. 20 Police Road, Bangalore City. It appears that the place was searched by the police under a search warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The accused were charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 80 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act), before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore City.3. All the accused pleaded guilty to the accusations, and the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Basheer Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mys218; 1970CriLJ1246; (1969)2MysLJ63
ORDER1. The order of the Magistrate who dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was a time barred prosecution was reversed by the Court of Session on the ground that the period of limitation applicable to the prosecution was that prescribed by Section 92 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and not that prescribed by Section 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 which was repealed. The petitioner who is the accused makes complaint that there was a misapplication of Section 92 of the 1958 Act, and that the prosecution was really governed by the provisions of the repealed Act.2. It is clear that both the Magistrate and the Court of Session overlooked the fact that the offences with which the accused was charged are those said to have been committed under Sections 482, 483 and 486 of the Penal Code, whereas the period of limitation to which Section 92 of the 1958 Act and that to which the repealed Act refers, do not refer to prosecutions in respect of offences punishable un...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sannappa Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ929
ORDERT.K. Tukol, J.1. In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of confiscation of certain bags of jowar, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, on 31st August 1968 as modified by the Sessions Judge on 17th December 1968:2. The petitioner holds Wholesale Dealers' Licence No. 44/64 dated 9-10-1964 issued on 31-12-1964 by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District. The petitioner purchased 100 bags of jowar in Hirehadagalli in the District of Bellary. Eighty bass of the purchased commodity had been loaded on the truck while 20 bags were still to be loaded. The Tahsildar, Hadagalli, found the commodity but nobody claimed the ownership of jowar, He instructed the police of Hirehadagalli to take the 100 bags of jowar into custody and initiate necessary action against the offenders under the provisions of the Food Control Orders in force,3. In response to a show-cause notice issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Palanimalal (S.V.) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ536Kant; (1969)2MysLJ392
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. Palanimalai who was described in a notice which was issued to him by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner functioning under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, as the proprietor of a business carried on under the name and style, Madurai Perfume Paradise, is the petitioner before us. He was called upon by the Commissioner to produce returns under the Act and on his failure to do so, he was intimated by a communication issued to his advocate on 13 September, 1966, that the arrears of contribution payable by him under the provisions of the Act would be recovered by the revenue authorities as if they were arrears of land revenue. In this writ petition, the petitioner asks us for a mandamus directing the concerned authorities to refrain from recovering any amounts for the payment of which there was a demand. 2. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri Vedanta Ayyangar, is that the provisions of the Act were inapplicable ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Gulappa Amminabhavi Vs. Fakirappa Bhimappa Hanchinal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant73; AIR1970Mys73; (1969)1MysLJ563
ORDER1. The petitioner Nagappa Gulappa Amminabhavi was elected to the Village Panchayat of Javoor at the election held early in 1968. The results of the election were declared on 12th March, 1968. Respondent 1 Fakirappa Bhimappa Hanchinal, a candidate defeated at the election, filed an election petition before the Munsiff of Navalgund on 1st April, 1968 under Section 13 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959.2. The petitioner remained ex parte. By an order dated 28th October, 1968, the Munsiff, after making a recount of the votes, set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the first respondent as elected.3. The petitioner has now approached this Court with this writ petition asking for the quashing of the Munsiff's order. As he was ex parte, no questions on merits are raised by the petitioner. His sole contention is that the petition before the Munsiff was clearly barred by limitation prescribed therefor and that therefore, under Section 3 of the Limitat...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Devoraj Vs. S.V. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant350; AIR1969Mys350; (1969)2MysLJ580
1. The salient facts in this case are not disputed. The plaintiff was the holder of a power of attorney from defendant, and it is marked Ex. P-2 and dated 12-2-1951. This power of attorney was cancelled on 24-3-1955. The plaintiff in exercise of the powers vested in him by virtue of the power of attorney arranged for the addition, alteration and repairs of a building bearing No. 861, Narayana Sastry Road, Mysore. This work was entrusted to one Veerabhadra Pillay. The licence for this work was obtained on 31-8-1953. While accepting the estimate for the work, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The estimate Ex. P-6 mention that the work is entrusted to Veerabhadra Pillai by the plaintiff in his capacity as power-of-attorney holder of the defendant. The total estimate was Rs. 5027.3-0. The amount due in respect of the work to be carried out was Rs. 4027-3.0 on 5-7-1954. Pillay, the contractor, wrote a letter marked Ex. P. 9 stating that the work entrusted to him has been completed, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »