Karnataka Court March 1973 Judgments
Obaiah and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ735; (1973)1MysLJ52
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. By this petition under Section 439, Criminal P. C., the petitioners have challenged the Order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Criminal Appeal No. 26/72. By that order, the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal as being out of time.2. The circumstances leading to this petition are these : The accused were charged with an offence under Section 379. I. P.C., read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act before the First Class Magistrate, Chitradurga, in C. C. No. 1219/70. They were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800/- each with the necessary default sentences, on 23-2-1972. The convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26/72 before the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. It would appear that the said appeal was barred by time. Consequently, the appellants therein had filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, in preferring the appeal. The said affidavit was supported by a medical certificate, apparently showing that one o...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. N.B. Lengde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ228; (1973)1MysLJ363
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This petition under Section 439, Cr. P. C., is by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, and directed against an Order made by the J. M. F. C., Belgaum, in S. No, 11 of 1971, whereby he has refused to take cognizance of a complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner.2. The ground on which he has based his Order is that by virtue of the provisions of Section 86 (1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, it was not competent for the Director-General to issue a general authorisation empowering the Regional Director to accord previous sanction, in regard to prosecutions instituted under the Act.3. It seems to me that the reason given by the learned Magistrate is clearly unsustainable. The relevant Section 86(1) reads thus:No prosecution under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Insurance Commissioner or of such other officer of the Corporation as may be authorised in this behalf by...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Akkamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ214; (1973)1MysLJ351
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This reference under Section 438 of Crl. P. C. is by the Sessions Judge, Dharwar. By an order made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/72, he has recommended to this Court that an order made by the J.M.F.C., Dharwar in Misc. Application No. 83/72 be quashed. The said application had been made by the Complainant in C. C. No. 1571/71 requesting for the restoration of the complaint after setting aside the order of dismissal for default and acquitting the accused.2. The complaint was one under Section 323, I.P.C. and was triable by following the procedure prescribed under Chapter 20 of Cr, P. C. relating to the trial of summons cases. It would appear that on 18-1-1972, when the case was called on for hearing, the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate thereupon kept by the file and called the case later at about 1-20 P.M. Finding that the complainant was still absent, he made an order acquitting the accused. Nearly a month thereafter on 19-2-72 the complain...
Tag this Judgment!All India Sewing Machine Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: ILR1973KAR1248; (1973)2MysLJ446
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', and referred the following questions of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) is valid in law ?' 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the assessee and the department, we recast the question as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) is justified in law ?' 3. The assessee is a registered firm and the relevant accounting period was the financial year ended on March 31, 1966. The return of income under section 139(2) became due on October 7, 1866. The assessee did not file its return by the said date not did it apply for extension of time until December 17, 1966. The request for extension of time made on December 17, 1966, was not granted by the Income-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Rao Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ220; (1973)1MysLJ362
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The petitioner and the third respondent who are husband and wife, received a notice under Section 133, Cr. P. C. from the Subdivisional Magistrate, Revenue Subdivision, Chickma-galur to vacate the house in which they are living as tenants of respondent No. 2 or to show cause against the order. The petitioner appeared to show cause. The Subdivisional Magistrate inspected the house on 2-12-1972 and passed the final order under Section 137, Cr. P. C. directing the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to vacate the house within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the order on them, failing which they would be evicted forcibly by the police. It is this order that is challenged in this petition.2. Under Section 137, Cr. P, C, it is the duty of the Magistrate to take evidence as basis for the order he has to make. The Subdivisional Magistrate inspected the building, but did not take evidence. His proceedings consequently show only his opinion that the structure wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court of Mysore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas505(Kar); ILR1973KAR577; (1973)2MysLJ21
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The above company application is a suit filed against the Karnataka Paper Mills Ltd. (in liquidation), which is ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No. 11 of 1970 by this court. The said suit was originally instituted as O.S. No. 32 of 1969 on the file of the Civil Judge, Dharwar, before the company was ordered to be wound up and after the order of winding up was passed, by an order passed under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it was withdrawn to this court for disposal, and numbered as Company Application No. 57/72. 2. The parties to the above application shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their description in the Court of the Civil Judge at Dharwar and the pleadings shall be referred to as the plaint and written statements. 3. The plaintiff is the Bank of Maharashtra and the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 1,97,343.01 with future interest and costs by sale of mortgaged pr...
Tag this Judgment!J.H. Gotla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: [1973]91ITR531(KAR); [1973]91ITR531(Karn); (1973)1MysLJ517
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The learned Judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows :] The assessee, an individual, was carrying on business in the purchase and sale of groundnut oil and also running an oil mill. He was also an abkari contractor. On June 1, 1957, he gifted away on part of the oil mill machinery, viz., what is called a solvent extraction plaint, to his wife and three minor children and a firm was constituted by the assessee's wife and another person to the profits of which the three minor sons of the assessee were also admitted. The mill premises as well as the remaining machinery of the assessee were leased out to this firm which carried on the business of the manufacture and sale of groundnut oil. The assessee also entered into agreements with this firm under which, for certain services rendered to the firm by way of management, the assessee was entitled to get commission at the stipulated rates on the purchases of oil cake and sale of deoiled cake made by the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Boriah Basavish and Sons Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant309; AIR1973Mys309; ILR1973KAR402; (1973)1MysLJ360
ORDERVenkataramiah, J.1. A dispute having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of certain terms and conditions embodied in an agreement dated 23-4-1969 as modified by a subsequent agreement dated 3-1-1972, the petitioner filed an application under Section. 8 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the Act) before the Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The said application was opposed by the respondent. The Court below rejected it. Aggrieved by the order of the Court below, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.2. The relevant clause of the agreement is Clause 45 and it reads:'In all cases of dispute or difference arising out of the work, which is not expressly provided herein shall be referred to the arbitration of an arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Institute of Engineers, Bangalore, or by his nominees, under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modifications thereof a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhandari Rajmal Kushalraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR401(KAR); [1974]96ITR401(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ276
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss of Rs. 11,100 was sustained by the assessee in speculative business within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 28 read with sub-section (5 of section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee carried on business in kapas, cotton and other sundry goods. There were purchases and sales of cotton bales and purchase of kapas and sale of cotton after ginning. The assessee returned a gross profit of Rs. 1,75,524 for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee claimed a deduction of the sum of Rs. 11,100 which was paid as differences to M/s. Patel Volkart Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Krishna Rajendra Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mysore, in respect of non-delivery o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Sujirkar's Tile Works Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR482(KAR); [1975]99ITR482(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore at Bangalore. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the assessee to raise the additional plea as to whether the amount of Rs. 2,34,362 could be taxable as capital gains ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company owning a tile factory in Mangalore. By a resolution dated July 16, 1972, the assessee decided to sell its business as going concern to a firm and its assets and liabilities consequently were transferred to firm consisting of four partners. The same partners were the directors and shareholders in the company also. Their shares in the firm were in proportion to the shares they held in the company. The transfer resulted in profit of Rs. 2,34,362 which was taken to the profit and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »