Karnataka Court October 1975 Judgments
Ganesh Narayana Hegde and ors. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Sirsi ( ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1976KAR580; [1976]37STC567(Kar)
ORDERNesargi, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the orders dated 16th December, 1974, in Criminal Misc. No. 20 of 1974, and 16th December, 1974, in Criminal Misc. No. 17 of 1974, respectively, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siddapur, directing issue of distress warrants. 2. Criminal Misc. No. 20 of 1974 and Criminal Misc. No. 17 of 1974 were registered on the applications filed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sirsi, under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Magistrate, praying that the amounts mentioned in the applications may be recovered from the present petitioners as if the amounts were fine imposed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate issued notices to the petitioners and the petitioners contended apart from other contentions, that they were not liable to pay the sums demanded and that the demand notices had not been served on them. The concerned demand notices were produced by the Commercia...
Tag this Judgment!Venkangouda Rangangouda Rangangoundar and ors. Vs. Virabhadrappa Parap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ572
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this petition, the order dated 10-7-1975, passed by the incharge Judicial Magistrate, First. Class. Kundgol in Criminal Case No. 144 of 1975. taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 352 and 506 read with Section .34. I, P.C. is challenged on the ground that the discharge Judicial Magistrate had no power to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offences.2. The necessary facts may be briefly narrated as follows: Sri S. S. Shrikhande was the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Kundgol, during the months of June and July 1975. He was granted commuted leave for 26 days, with effect from 16-6-1975 upto .fl 1-7-1975. The High Court issued the notification dated 26th June, 1975, placing the II Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C, III Court, Hubli, in charge of the current duties of the Court of the Munsiff & J. M. F. C, Kundgol, during the leave'period of Sri S. S. Shrikande. On 10-7-1.975 respondent Virabhadrappa Parappa Angadi, filed a complaint before the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Sangappa Yamanappa Kattimani and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ575
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The State has filed this petition against the order of discharge, dated 30-8-1974, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muddebihal, in Criminal Case No. 590 of 1974, discharging the respondents of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is that at about 8-00 p.m. on 24-4-1974 near the village gate of Devoor, the respondents pelted stones against the deceased Salamanca and caused injuries to him; and that Sayabanna developed tetanus on 2-5-1974 and further that he expired on 3-5-1974 in the T. D. B. Dispensary at Muddebihal.3. The police investigated into the case on receipt of the first information report on 3-5-1974 and filed charge-sheet. On the filing of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and thereafter enlarged the respondents on bail as requested by them, By the order in question, the Magistrate has discharged the respondents of the offence under Section 302...
Tag this Judgment!Swastik Enterprises Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: ILR1976KAR453; 1976(1)KarLJ100
ORDER1. On 6th August 1969, the petitioner filed an application for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' for the purpose of constructing a permanent cinema theatre at Hoskote. Then the Mysore Cinematograph Rules, 1946, which I shall refer to as 'the old rules' were in force. When the application was pending consideration, the old Rules were repealed by Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, which I shall shortly call as 'the new rules'. The statutory authorities dismissed the application by applying the principles set out under the old rules.The question raised in this writ petition is whether the said application should have been disposed of by the procedure provided A under the old rules, or by the principles set out under the new rules.2. By Rule 117 of the new rules, the old rules were repealed providing thereunder that the said rules shall not affect the previous operation of the old rules and the principles of Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899. Section 6 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Channegowda Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ576
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed on 30-10-1974 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunigal, in C. C. No. 7 of 1972. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravening Clause 3 of Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966, (to be herein-air referred to as the Order) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days.2. The prosecution case-is that the petitioner grew paddy in the year 1970-71 is survey Nos. 44/2, 50/3, ,50/4, 50/5, 272, 360,, 270 and 266 of Kothagere-Amanikere, Taluka Kunigal. He was to pay levy to the State Government. Hence, P.W. 2 T. N. Siddananjappa, the Enforcement Officer, issued levy demand notice as per Ex. P-12 on 20-7-1971 calling upon the petitioner to sell 7.50 quintals of paddy within a week therefrom. The petitioner did not comply with Ex. P...
Tag this Judgment!H. Annappa Kamath Vs. Deputy Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant130; ILR1976KAR108; 1975(2)KarLJ399
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Councillor of the Town Municipal Council, Thirthalially. The Municipal Council passed a resolution on the 19th of January, 1975, at a special general body meeting, copy of which is produced in the case as Exhibit-A, under Section 41 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending to the State Government that disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner and that he should be removed from the office of the councillor of the Town Municipal Counci1, Thirthahally. The petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga District under Section 306(1) of the Act and prayed for suspending the execution of the resolution or prohibiting giving effect to the said resolution. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 5th of April, 1975, produced in the case as Exhibit-B, rejected the petition holding that there was no sufficient ground to exercise the powers vested in him under Section 306(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Malakappa and ors. Vs. Mallappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant32; 1976(1)KarLJ108
Sadanandaswamy, J.1. Respondent 1 plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court for partition and Possession of his half share in the suit properties. Defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded as alienees of some of the joint family Properties, Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. Second respondent is defendant 4.2. One Siddappa who died on 21-6-1898 had two sons. Basappa and Kulappa. Basappa died on 2-8-1930 and Kulappa died on 23-9-1909. Defendant 1 is the only son of Basappa and he was born in 1916. The plaintiff is the only son of Kulappa and he was born in 1910. Defendant 1 has an only daughter who is married. Defendant 1 had also got two sisters. Chandrawwa and Dundawwa. the former died about 3 months prior to the suit and the latter about 3years Prior to the suit. Dundawwa adopted the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that his adoption was in Dwyamushyayana form and claims right in the Properties of the natural family also and that he is entitled to Partition and possession of half share i...
Tag this Judgment!Neelakantashivacharya Pattadeverguru Virupakshadevaru Muttinakanthi Hi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1975
Reported in: 1976(1)KarLJ464
1. The appellant is the plaintiff, Respondent-1 is defendant-1, Respondents 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of defendant-2 and Respondent-7 is defendant 3, the Charity Commissioner. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the Pattada Devaru of Muthina Kanthi Mutt situated in Bijapur District and for recovery of the properties belonging to the Mutt. Defendant-1 claims that he is himself the Pattadhikari and defendant-2 claims to be the previous Pattadhikari. The trial court held that the plaintiff is the duly appointed Pattada Devaru but that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and dismissed this suit. The lower appellate court held that the installation of the plaintiff as Pattada Devaru is invalid. It also held that the first defendant is the successor duly nominated by Sivalingeswara, the previous Pattadhikari. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It acc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›