Karnataka Court September 1975 Judgments
L. Muniswamy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ763
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 248 of 1975 are A-10 and A-13 to A-15 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1975 in the court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 253 of 1975 are A-17 to A-20 in the said sessions case. The petitioners will be designated in the course of this order as stated above.2. At about 7.00 A. M. on 6-12-1973, Ajit Dutt C. W. 2 was stabbed while he was in the Central Avenue of the colony of the Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Bangalore. The incident was reported to the police and investigation commenced. On investigation it was found that A-2 and A-3 to A-6 had the common intention of committing the murder of C. W. 2 and in pursuance of that A-2 had stabbed and A-l, A-7 and A-14 had abetted the commission of the offence. It was also disclosed during the investigation that between 20-9-1973 and 6-12-1973 the 20 accused persons arraigned in the charge-sheet, had conspired to murder C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Naik and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ925
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. Trial in Sessions Case No. 31 of W74 was taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga as against these petitioners only. They were accused Nets. 21 to 24 as a the charge-sheet presented against 27 accused persons. They had been fathom as absconding along with three order persons. Those three persons were discharged at one stage or the other. The prosecution evidence was closed on 14-8-1973. On that day, the defence contended after examination of the accused and during the hearing of the prosecution and the defence by the learned Additional Session Judge that the accused viz., the petitioners were entitled to be acquitted under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Code'). The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the contention of the defence and called upon the accused to enter on their defence. It is this order that is challenged in this criminal petition.2. Shri Appa Rao, learned Counsel for the p...
Tag this Judgment!H.L. Kumar and anr. Vs. Jayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant94; ILR1976KAR143; 1975(2)KarLJ441
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of an order of the District Judge, Shimoga, in the Probate Proceedings, whereby he permitted a party who had earlier consented to the grant of probate, to contest the same.2. The matter arises in this way: One Lingappa was a leading Advocate in the local Bar in Shimoga City. He died on 26th November, 1972, leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughters, The sons claimed the entire properties of the deceased on the basis of a will dated 20th November, 1972 said to have been executed by their father in their favor. The sons made a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (shortly called 'the Act') praying for the grant of probate of the said Will. On 11th Sept. 1973, their mother and two sisters filed a written statement admitting the execution of the Will and consenting for the grant of probate as prayed for. But the remaining three sisters had a different story to tell. They filed an objection statement denying the executi...
Tag this Judgment!Kanna Belchada Vs. Ramappa Poojary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant67; ILR1976KAR139; 1975(2)KarLJ462
ORDER1. This petition under Section 115, is by defendant-1 challenging the interim injunction granted against him in O. S. No. 194 of 1975. Respondent-I filed the said suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Buntwal. South Kanara District, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged possession and enjoinment of the plaint A schedule properties. Re plaint A schedule properties consist of (1) S. Not 102/lA, Wet, measuring 48 cents and (2) S. No. I02/lA, portion, Wet, measuring 58 cents.2. The plaint was presented on 7-8 1975. On the same day, the plaintiff moved the trial Court for a temporary injunction. The learned Munsiff granted tie prayer in the following terms:' I. A. No. II : - To issue temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, successors etc. from entering into and interfering with petitioners possession of plaint A schedule properties and for an order of ad interim injunction pending disposal of this application. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.H. Annegowda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ809
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition :s directed against the order dated 20-1-1975 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, on the two applications of the two petitioners, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1974.2. The necessary facts may be stated briefly as follows:In regard to the murder of one Bobe-gowda, a case in Crime No. 62 of 1973 was registered on 13-10-1973, On completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against these two petitioners only. On 16-11-1973, the case was registered as C. C. No. 2319 of 1973. The Magistrate inquired into the case and committed the petitioners by his order dated 15-3-1974 and framed a charge against them for having committed an offence under Section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. He read over and explained the charge to the petitioners and directed them to take trial before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, The records of the case reached the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, on 23-3-1974. The case was ordered ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1975
Reported in: [1986]157ITR327(KAR); [1986]157ITR327(Karn)
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question law, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was precluded from directing the Income-tax Officer under section 263 of the Act to levy interest under section 139(1)(iii) ?' 2. The assessment relates to the year 1964-65. The assessee, which is a firm, filed a return of its income for the assessment year in question on April 1, 1966, showing a total income of Rs. 97,469. Subsequently, on February 5, 1968, it filed a revised return declaring a total income of Rs. 1,61,375, which included business income of Rs. 81,757. The return of income had to be filed by December 31, 1964, under section 139(1) of the Act. However, since a notice under section 139(...
Tag this Judgment!B. Padmavathi Rai Vs. Parvathiamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1975
Reported in: ILR1976KAR119
1. The suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the balance of unpaid money under a registered Assignment Deed was decreed ex parte on the ground that the defendant had refused to take the summons. Immediately thereafter, the defendant moved the Court with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree, stating that she had not refused any summons, nor it was tendered to her. The trial Court after considering the evidence recorded a finding adverse to the defendant and also observed that the defendant had indirect knowledge about the filing of the suit. The correctness of the rejection of the application is called into question in this appeal.2. The Court below in support of its conclusion has relied upon the following statement at para (8) in the evidence of the defendant:'About 11 months back from today I received that notice I did not receive that notice. My husband was not in the house and hence I did not receive it. I ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Jaichand Etc. Vs. the Town Municipality, Robertsonpet, K.G.F. and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant138; ILR1976KAR100; 1976(1)KarLJ30
ORDER1. The petitioners are residing in the area over which Robertson pet Town Municipal Council (herein after referred to as the 'Council') has jurisdiction. There are two shop premises belonging to the Council situate in a busy part of the said municipal area. That on 23-7-1971 the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, in exercise of his power under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), suspended the order of the President of the Council to dispose of the lease-hold rights in respect of two shops under a private treaty as he was of the opinion that it could be done only after due publication of the intention of the Council to do so. Contrary to the said decision of the Deputy Commissioner, the President allotted the two, premises on 17-6-1972 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 on lease at Rs. 75/- each per month. The Council did not advertise that the lease-hold rights of the premises in question would be disposed of as required by law befo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Abdul Rahiman and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ928
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The State has filed these revision petitions, challenging the common order dated 16-4-1975, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Sessions Case Nos. 30 to 36 of 1974, quashing the order of commitment dated 19-6-1974, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadravathi, in C. C. Nos. 73, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 and 552 of 1973, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Code') and directing that the record should be Bent back to the Magistrate and the Magistrate should proceed to dispose of the cases, according to law,2. The offences for which the respondents were committed are under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 420 and 471, I.P.C.3. Though the charge-sheets had been filed in the year 1972, the committal inquiries were pending in the Court of the J.M.F.C, Bhadravathi, even as on 1-4-1974, the date on which the new Code came into force.4. According to Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, (h...
Tag this Judgment!Koti Srinivasachar Vs. the Land Tribunal, Harapanahally Taluka and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant33; ILR1976KAR94; 1976(1)KarLJ13
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of two lands bearing Survey Numbers 82 and 89/A of Harapanahalli village. Respondent No. 2 applied to the Land Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Karanataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as amended by Act 1 of 1974 requesting it to declare that he was the tenant in possession of the said lands and that he was entitled to be registered as an occupant. Pursuant to the said application, notice was issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner under Section 48-A (2) of the Act to show cause as to why action should not be taken on the application made by respondent No. 2.2. At the hearing of the cm before the Tribunal one Mr. B. P., an Advocate by profession filed a power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and requested the tribunal to permit him to art as agent of the petitioner, in that case. The Tribunal declined to entertain the power-of attorney filed by Mr. B. P. and to permit him to condu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »