Karnataka Court February 1977 Judgments
MinIn Kamel Alfanso and ors. Vs. Ramakant Vinayak Gaonkar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant135; 1977(1)KarLJ196
1. This second appeal has come up before us upon a reference made by Venkataramiah. J.2 The facts, which are not now in dispute, are these: The appellants are legal representatives of one Kamil B. Alfanso. On 14th February 1934, Kamil and U.Gopalacharya together executed a mortgage deed hypothecating their individual properties in favour of one Shantararn Mangesh Kulkarni and obtained a loan of Rs. 6,500/-. On default to redeem the mortgage, Shantararn filed a suit 0. S.No. 86 of 1940 against the executants and obtained a decree for Rs. 9,080/- together with future interest at 6% per annum. The final decree in the suit was made an 17th October 1942.3. When the said decree was under execution, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (Bombay Act 28 of 1947) (shortly called 'the Act'), came into tome and the execution proceedings consequently stood transferred to the Court constituted under the Act ('B. A. D. R. Court')? In the proceedings before the B. A. D. R. Court, Kamil was- ...
Tag this Judgment!Harijana Subbaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1364
D.B. Lal, J.1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mercara in a case Under Section 392 r/w Section 397 of the I. P. Code, whereby he has convicted the appellant for these offences and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The case of the prosecution was that the accused claimed to be a beggar by profession. He used to visit Monnangeri village and used to ask for alms from the residents of that village. Kamavva used to reside in Monnanggri village and similarly the accused visited her house on several occasions to take alms. On 5-12-1975 at about 11-30 a.m. the accused went to the house of Kamavva who was alone at that time. He asked for alms and was given 8 anna bit by Kamavva. No sooner she turned her back the accused gave several blows to her with a stick. After the stick broke into pieces, he lifted a billhook lying there. He assaulted her with that bill-hook and caused grievous injuries. Thereafter the accused remov...
Tag this Judgment!Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Kar)194; ILR1977KAR822; [1977]40STC161(Kar)
Tewatia, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Cement Marketing Company of India Limited (an agent of the State Trading Corporation of India and hereinafter referred to as the 'assesses-company'), is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, dated 30th October, 1976, whereby the suo motu revised the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Appeals), who had, in turn by his order dated 29th June, 1975, of the Assistant Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Assessment), Bangalore, in regard to the exclusion of freight turnover from the taxable turnover. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order under appeal modified the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and restored that of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes holding that the assesses-company was not entitled to the exclusion of freight turnover from the taxable turnover in regard to the year in question, i.e., assessment year 1963-64. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1977
Reported in: 1977(2)KarLJ83
Tewatia, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of the Cement Marketing Company of India Limited (an agent of the State Trading Corporation of India and hereinafter referred to as the 'assesses-company'), is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, dated 30th October, 1976, whereby he suo motu revised the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), who had, in turn by his order dated 27th February, 1975, modified the order dated 29th June, 1972, of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Bangalore, in regard to the inclusion of freight turnover from the taxable turnover. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order under appeal modified the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and restored that of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes holding that the assesses-company was not entitled to the exclusion of freight turnover from the taxable turnover in regard to the year i...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Rasool and ors. Vs. Mohammad Moulana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant173; ILR1977KAR416; 1977(1)KarLJ181
1. The appellants, who were plaintiffs in O. S. No. 21 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiff, Bidar, instituted the said suit for redemption of a mortgage executed by Saiduddin alias Saidan Saheb on 7-6-1951 for Rs. 2,500/- (O. S.) in favour of the defendant mortgaging a house belonging to him, as his heirs. It would appear that the mortgagor Saiduddin had also executed a sale deed dated 6-11-1952 in favour of the defendant purporting to convey his right, title and interest in the said house. The plaintiffs pleaded in the course of the plaint that the sale-deed in question was a nominal one and the parties to it did not intend that it should be an effective instrument. They, therefore, pleaded that they were entitled to redeem the mortgage dated 7-6-1951 notwithstanding the alleged nominal sale-deed dated 6-11-1952. The defendant contended, among other pleas, that the suit for redemption was not maintainable since the mortgagor had parted with his right, title and interest in the property...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Shivappa Horadi Vs. Krishna Triyambak Deshpande
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1367
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, dismissing an appeal filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Haveri who had dismissed a petition Under Section 476 read with Section 195(b) of the then Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Veerappa Shivappa Horadi the petitioner and another filed a civil suit L.C. Suit No. 220 of 1967 against the respondent Krishna Triyambak Deshpande and five others in the Court of the Munsiff and JMFC, Haveri. That suit was for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for the recovery of Rs. 500/- for damages. The suit was decreed ex parte and the respondent filed an application under O. IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1968 for the restoration of that suit. The learned Munsiff dismissed that application and the respondent came in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Hubli. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the respondent filed an affidavit in which...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sangha V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Kar)65; 1977(1)KarLJ137; [1977]39STC299(Kar)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The common petitioner in the sen revision petitions under Section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act') is a society. For the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. But later the assessee filed application under Rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. The assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wood was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the Act in view of the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in M/s. Supervisor Wool Industry Development Co-operative Association Limited, Ranebennur. The Commercial Tax Officer, acceded to that request and following the said decision rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dasappa and Company Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Mysore Circle, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC320(Kar)
ORDERLal, J. 1. This is a criminal revision under section 13(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'), and it arises in the following circumstances : M/s. S. Dasappa and Company is said to be a partnership firm having their place of business at Santepet, Kollegal, District Mysore. It is not disputed that they are assessees under the Act and, accordingly, under sections 12 and 12-B of the Act, they were liable to submit returns for assessment. They were also liable to pay the tax in advance. It is again beyond the pale of controversy that M/s. S. Dasappa and Company, the present petitioners, submitted the annual return under section 12 in form 4, but did not pay any tax in advance. The Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice of demand under form 3-A under rule 18(1)(c) made under the Act. Despite that notice of demand, the tax was not paid. Accordingly, it was considered by the department that the tax was an amount due under the Act from such d...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Khan Haneef Khan Vs. Mehrunnisa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ923
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwar, in a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), filed by the respondent-1 (Mehrunnisa) granting her maintenance of Rs. 60/- per month.2. Before the learned Magistrate, Mehrunnisa and her son Ismail Khan filed the petition alleging that Mehrunnisa was married with Mohamad Khan Haneef Khan some time in 1954, but soon-thereafter the husband started beating the wife and committed other acts of cruelty with the result that Mehrunnisa is staying with her parents. According to the respondents-petitioners, since the petitioner-respondent refused or neglected to maintain them, they were entitled to claim maintenance to the extent of Rs. 300/- per-menses as the annual income of the husband was Rupees 12,700/-. The petitioner-respondent took the plea that Mehrunnisa became unchaste soon-after marriage. Therefore, the hus...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sangha V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Kar)0065A
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - The common petitioner in the sen revision petitions under Section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act') is a society. For the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. But later the assessee filed application under Rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. The assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wood was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the Act in view of the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in M/s. Supervisor Wool Industry Development Co-operative Association Limited, Ranebennur. The Commercial Tax Officer, acceded to that request and following the said decision rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »