Karnataka Court August 1974 Judgments
Prem Agnani and anr. Vs. the Head Quarters Sub-registrar, Gandhinagar, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant1; ILR1975KAR177; 1974(2)KarLJ450
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Under the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2460 of 1972, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority submitted a statement of the case under Section 54(1) of the Kamataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957). The question in this Reference relates to theproper duty chargeable on the mortgage deed executed on 6-12-1971 by M/s. Hotel Swiss Cottage (referred to as the 'Mortgagor') in favour of the Mysore State Financial Corporation (referred to as the 'Corporation) under the provisions of the Kamataka Stamp Act, 1957.2. The Mortgagor borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the Corporation and executed a mortgage deed on 6-12-1971 in respect of the immoveables (leasehold rights of the Mortgagor's premises) for Rs. 2,000/-and an unattested hypothecation deed tor Rs. 1,38,000/- against moveables in favour of the Corporation. The deed has been drawn on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 85/- on the Basis that the sum secured thereunder was rupees two thousand only...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Dattathri Shastri Vs. Vamana Rao Apte
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant116; 1975(1)KarLJ301
1. This is an appeal under Rule 1 of Order XLIII, Civil P. C. by the plaintiff in O. S. 249 of 1969 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, at Shimoga. He is aggrieved by an order of remand made by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga, in R. A. 188 of 1972.2. The suit as laid by the appellant was for an injunction restraining the defendant from making use of his open space in order to effect repairs to his own building. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was entitled to such a right by prescription. The trial court framed two issues, and they are:(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in exclusive possession of the plaint schedule land at the time of suit?(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction sought against the defendant?3. The plea of the defendant that ha had a prescriptive right as contended, has been exhaustively considered by the learned Munsiff in the context of issue No. 2. Indeed, parties have led evidence on a proper un...
Tag this Judgment!H.A. Hajee Ismail and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant67; ILR1975KAR415
ORDER1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the sole question for decision is, whether the Karnataka Automobile Tyres and Tubes (Control) Order, 1971, is ultra vires and void as contended for the petitioners.2. The said order was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), read with S. O. No. 1844, dated the 18th of June, 1966 issued by the Government of India. It was made on 13th December, 1971, and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 14th of December, 1971. It extends to the whole of the State of Karnataka. It provides, among others, for regulating the sale of tyres and tubes of all varieties, issuing of licence and prosecution for contravening the conditions of the licence.3. The petitioners are dealers in tyres and tubes. Their common contention is that the State Government have had no power validly delegated by the Central Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vs. R. Vaidyanath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1275; 1974(2)KarLJ205
ORDER1. This revision petition brought on behalf of Defendant 3 in O. S. 1257 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore, arises out of an application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff.2. The matter arises in this way: defendant I Bangalore University, invited applications for one post of Professor of Political Science and one post of Reader in Political Science. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were the applicants to the said posts, among others. The candidates were interviewed by the Board of Appointments and defendant 2 Dr. K. H. Cheluva Raj was appointed as Professor and defendant 3 Dr. Narayan was appointed as Reader, by a resolution of the Syndicate dated 27-6-1974. Dr. Vaidyanath, the plaintiff, who was an unsuccessful candidate, instituted the suit in the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore, as 29-6-1974, wherein he prayed for judgment and decree as follows:'(a) .........Declaring that the appointment of defendants 2 and 3 is irregul...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Sidda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1159
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this appeal by the State, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1973, acquitting the respondent, who was the accused therein, of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on two counts, is challenged.2. The prosecution case is that the accused had illwill towards P. W. 4 C. M. Madaiah called Yayaman Madaiah on account of the distribution of sites to Harijans by P. W. 4. He had picked up quarrel with P. W. 4. By about 6.00 P. M. on 15-8-1972 the accused stabbed Basavanna who is the brother-in-law of P. W. 4 near the house of P. W. 1 Nanjamma when Basavanna and P. W. 4 were there. At that time Nagabasava, brother of P. W. 8 Powla, intervened and the accused stabbed him also. Basavanna died on the spot while Nagabasava sustained a severe stab injury. He was lying injured there when P. W. 8 Powla went to him and Nagabasava stated to him that the accused had stabbed him. P. W. 1 Nanjamma and P...
Tag this Judgment!Gavisiddiah Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ285
Nesargi. J.1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge. Raichur. in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1973. He has. in this appeal, challenged the conviction and sentence.2. This case has a history of its own. At 1-00 A. M. on 20-6-1960 one Shivabassappa was stabbed while he was sleeping in his house. The house opposite to that belonged to him. Shankarappa and Gurappa. who are sons of Shivabassa-ppa. Shankarappa's wife and children and P.W. 5 Irayya and P.W. 6 Sofikhan who are servants of Shivalbassappa used to sleep in that house. Shankarappa and his wife had gone to Bangalore as Shankarappa's wife was to be treated. Virupakshappa. Hanmappa Kali. Bassayya. Irayya and this appellant, according to prosecution, entered the house where Shivabassappa was sleeping and stabbed him. Shivabassappa cried out and P. Ws. 5 and woke up. They took a lantern with them and rushed to the...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. P.S. Suryanarayana Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant71; 1975(1)KarLJ148
G. K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chickballapur, is directed against the Award and decree dated 29-9-1972 in L. A. C. No. 3 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Kolar, by which the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands acquired was enhanced.2. Four acres and odd of wet lands comprised in Survey Nos. 44 45 46/1, 46/2 and 47 of Balareddipalli Village, Bagepalli Taluk in Kolar District, were acquired for the restoration of a tank pursuant to the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Mysore Gazette dated 27-6-1963. Even before the preliminary notification, possession of the lands had been taken in the year 1952 by the Public Works Department. Before the Land Acquisition Officer the claimants had claimed compensation for the lands at Rs. 8,000/-an acre; they had also claimed Rupees 2,000/- an acre as crop compensation from the date of taking possessi...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. S. Venkataraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1974
Reported in: 1975(1)KarLJ142
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by the State of Karnataka and two others who are the defendants in O. S. No. 24 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Udipi. That is a suit by the respondent against the petitioners, wherein the validity of the acquisition of the land comprised in Survey No. 415/1 of Shivalli Village, Udipi Taluk, has been challenged. The plaintiff in the suit has prayed for-'a declaration that he should not be deprived of the property, viz., S. No. 415/1 (in Shivalli village, Udipi Taluk), owned and possessed by him by resorting to, and/or on the basis of, the notifications cited in paras 4 and 8 of this plaint and published in the Mysore Gazette on 13-9-1962 and 29-4-1965 respectively.'2. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Mysore Gazette dated 13-9-1962. The final notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29-4-1965. The...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. G.V. Deshanur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC26(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the State under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 13th April, 1973, in S.T.A. No. 242 of 1970, allowing the appeal of the respondent holding that the respondent had acted as the agent of the State Government in the matter of purchases and sales of foodgrains and was therefore exempt from sales tax.2. The assessment relates to the period from 25th October, 1965, to 12th November, 1966. During the said period, the respondent assesses acted as the agent of the Government in procuring foodgrains and distributing the same. The assessing authority in the assessment order stated that the assessee was acting as procuring and distributing agent in jawar, paddy and other foodgrains and food products on behalf of the Government of Mysore, but relying on the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 7th February, 1967, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mohan and Co. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC565(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This revision petition preferred by the assessee under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act), is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, made on 20th September, 1972, in S.T.A. No. 259 of 1972.2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee is an individual and on the return submitted by him an assessment order was made on 2nd August, 1969, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,28,540. Proceedings were initiated for bringing to assessment certain escaped turnover under section 12-A of the Act in the course of which the Additional Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice dated 18th January, 1971, purporting to be one under section 12(4) of the Act, to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 2,894.40 should not be levied for the concealment of a turnover of Rs. 1,28,640.00. To the said notice, the assessee filed his objections. The Commercial Tax Officer made an order of assessm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »