Karnataka Court July 1974 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.
Sha Vajeshankar Vasudeva and Company Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC257(Kar)
ORDER1. All these four petitions are filed by a firm which is carrying on business in Mangalore. The petitioner was an assessee under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. W.P. No. 829 of 1974 relates to the accounting period between 1st October, 1957, and 31st March, 1958, W.P. No. 830 of 1974 relates to the period between 1st April, 1963, and 31st August, 1963, W.P. No. 831 of 1974 relates to the period between 1st September, 1963, and 9th September, 1964, and W.P. No. 1556 of 1974 relates to the period between 10th September, 1964, and 7th September, 1965. In respect of the periods to which W.P. Nos. 829 to 831 of 1974 relate, the assessment orders were passed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act on 27th April, 1966, and in respect of the period to which W.P. No. 1556 of 1974 relates, the order of assessment was passed on 31st October, 1967. After the Central Sales Tax Act was amended in 1969, it was found by the assessing officer that in the orders of asse...
Shubhakar Sridhar Shastry Vs. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1239; 1975(1)KarLJ3
Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is by the unsuccessful claimant in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1971 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijapur District.2. The claimant (appellant) was a student of B.Com., class and was also employed apparently on a part-time, basis as a clerk in some business firm. It would appear that he was in the habit of visiting the samadhi of one Pandit, which was situated on an approach road adjoining Bijapur-Gulbarga road. On 3-12-1970 the claimant was cycling along the said road at about 7.30 a.m. for the purpose of visiting the said 'samadhi'. The metal or asphalted portion of that road used by the vehicles was about 10 feet in width. When he was cycling along that road on the left side and when the concerned approach road leading to the samadhi was still some way ahead he took a turn to the right side of the road, soon after a lorry passed him. Apparently he had not seen the bus belonging to the Karn...
Kori Bharmappa Vs. Bapanahalli Obaleshappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant127; ILR1974KAR1147
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 72 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Bellary. In the said suit the plaintiff produced in evidence a lease deed which was unstamped. Since the lease deed was unstamped, the Court made an order holding that stamp duty is chargeable on the document under Article 30 (a) (viii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. On the said basis, the plaintiff was called upon to pay Rs. 1,237-50 as stamp duty and penalty. Against the said order the plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, contains provisions empowering the Court, before which an unstamped document is produced, to levy stamp duty and penalty before it is admitted in evidence. The Act also contains a complete procedure for rectification of errors, if any, committed by the Court. The aggrieved party has to seek redress in the manner provided by the Act. If the duty and penalty levied are ...
Abdul Azeez Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ335
Nesargi, J.1. The appellant In Cr. A. No. 456 of 1973 has been sentenced to death after having been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 303 of the Indian PenalCode, by the Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1973.2. The prosecution case was that by 27-1-1973 the accused was undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life passed on him by this Court in Cr. A. No. 269 of 1960, and by 10.00 A. M. on that day viz.. 27-1-1973, he speared Kurubara Narayanappa and cut on his neck with a chopper, in front of Vasudev Rolling Mills, Kalaipeth, Kolar, and committed his murder.The accused pleaded not guilty.3. He refused legal assistance when the same was offered to him by the learned Sessions Judge. He insisted that he would defend his own case. The learned Sessions Judge permitted him to do be. In this Court also he insisted that he would himself argue his case. We permitted him to do so. But. however, we appointed Sri M. V. Deva Raju, Advocate, as amicus curiae...
VipIn Kumar JaIn Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ747
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. A short but an important question arises for decision in this petition under Articles 226 and 227, and that is, whether the Collector of Central Excise, under the proviso to Section 79(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is required to give notice to the concerned person before he extends the period to issue show cause notice against the confiscation of the seized articles.2. The facts leading to the petition are these:On 24-6-1969 the Central Excise Authorities searched the petitioner at H. A. L. Airport, Bangalore, and seized 230 gold sovereigns for the contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. The seizure was made under the provisions of Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act since the petitioner did not produce any permit or authorisation for its possession/acquisition. On 11-6-1970 the Collector of Central Excise issued notice to the petitioner and two other concerned persons calling upon them to show cause as to why the gold seized s...
Shoukat Mohammad Hatrot Vs. Narayana Govinda Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1382; 1974(2)KarLJ376
1. The appellant is the second Judgment-debtor who was one of the sureties who executed a bond under Order 41 Rule 6 C. P. C. in the form presented in Appendix 'G'. But the bond was executed in the name of the Court and not in the name of the Presiding Officer or any Officer of the Court.2. It is urged by Mr. K. A. Swamy, firstly that since the bond is not executed in the name of the Presiding Officer or any other officer of the court, the court being not a juridical person, the bond is inexecutable. Secondly, it is urged that the surety bond cannot be enforced in the execution proceeding, but that it can be enforced only in a separate suit filed against the sureties.3. He has relied on the decision inAIR 1919 PC 55 = 46 Ind App 228 (Raghubar Singh v. Jaj Indra Bahadur Singh).In that case, the surety bond created a chargeon the immoveable property but there was nopersonal liability undertaken by the surety.Their Lordships of the Privy Council heldthat since there was no personal liabil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›