Karnataka Court April 1978 Judgments
Gajaraj Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC271(Kar)
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The question of law which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the turnover in respect of plates used in switch gear boxes, sold by the petitioner to M/s. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., who are manufacturers of electrical switch gears, has to be taxed at a concessional rate under section 5(3A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. 2. Section 5(3A) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods mentioned in the Second Schedule by such dealer to a registered dealer for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in that schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of two per cent. or the rate specified in the Second Schedule in respect of such goods whichever is lower on the turnover relating to such sale. In order to claim the benefit of section 5(3A), the dealer has to show : ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurubasappa Gurupadappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ294
ORDERN.R. Kudoor, J.1. The short point involved in this criminal petition is whether a Magistrate before whom a private complaint is filed is empowered to refer the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the offences disclosed in the complaint are exclusively triable by the Court of Session.2. The facts necessary for deciding the question involved in the petition may be stated as under:The petitioner herein Sled a private-con-plaint under Section 200. Cr. P. G. on 26-8-1977 against respondents 2 to 19 before the Munsiff and J. M. F. G., Ranebennur alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 395, 149, 447 and 504 read with Section 34, I. P. C. After the complaint was (To set aside the order of Prl. Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Ranebennur, D/- 29-8-1977.) filed, the Magistrate, under his order dated 29-8-1977, referred the case to the Circle Inspector of Police, Ranebennur for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. C.V. Bagalkoti and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: ILR1979KAR127; [1978]115ITR131(KAR); [1978]115ITR131(Karn); 1979(1)KarLJ34
Venkataramaiah, J.1. Because a common question of law arises for consideration in these two cases they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The assessees in these two cases are different persons. C. G. Bagalkoti & Sons, a registered firm of Dharwar, is the assessee in ITRC No. 31 of 1974. In respect of assessment year 1965-66, the assessee filed a return on July 31, 1968. In the course of the said assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer felt satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of certain income-tax derived by it during the previous year in question and, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since he was of the opinion that the minimum penalty imposable was more than rupees one thousand, he referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. After hearing the assessee, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was of the opinion that penalty was ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Kishore Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ733
N.R. Kudoor, J.1. The petitioner Nanda Kishore has filed this revision petition against the order dated 6-8-1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar in Criminal Misc. Appeal Number 22/1975 directing return of six articles M. Os. 1 to 6 to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, who are representatives of the deceased appellant, who are respondents 2 to 6 herein. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may be stated in brief as under:2. The Town Police of Bidar prosecuted the petitioner herein under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, for having been found in possession of M. Os. 1 to C under the reasonable belief that they were the stolen properties and the petitioner failed to account for the possession of the same, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidar, in C. C. No. 931/3/73. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the properties M. Os., 1 to 6, of which the pet...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR348(KAR); [1979]117ITR348(Karn); 1978(2)KarLJ30
Venkataramaiah, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. These seven reference are made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The relevant assessment years are 1959-60 to 1965-66. 3. On April 26, 1965, the assessee made a voluntary disclosure before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, declaring a total amount of Rs. 11, 67, 008 distributed over several previous years as his income which had not been disclosed in his return before March 1, 1965, and which had escaped assessment before that date. The said disclosure was made under s. 68 of the Finance Act of 1965. On the basis of the said disclosure, the assessee paid on May 10, 1965, an amount of Rs. 7, 00, 205, being 60% of the disclosed amount. Thereafter, the WTO issued notices under s. 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 to 1964-65, on basis of the information...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka Vs. R.B. Mamle Desai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR928(KAR); [1979]118ITR928(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question referred under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to this court is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the occupancy rights granted to the deceased consequent upon the abolition of the watan did not form the separate property of the deceased but constituted joint family property in which he had 1/7th share ?'2. The undisputed facts of the case are these : There was on Basavantha Rao Mamle Desai in the District of Dharwar. He held the property in question as watan property within the meaning of s. 4 of the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act, 1874 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Watan Act'). Till the year 1887, he was under an obligation to render certain service to the Government in lieu of the watan property. By a sanad issued by the Collector in the year 1887, the obligation to perform the duties was removed. The property ...
Tag this Judgment!Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Shaikh Mohammed and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: [1978(37)FLR148]; ILR1978KAR1109; 1978(2)KarLJ178; (1979)ILLJ23Kant
1. The petitioner, Motor Industries Company Ltd., an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, has presented this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Reference No. 66 of 1976 dated 29th March, 1977, holding that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-management against respondent 1, workman, was invalid. 2. After holding a domestic enquiry the petitioner removed respondent 1 from its service. The State Government, by its order dated 14th April, 1976, referred the dispute involving the question of legality of the removal of respondent 1 from service to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court respondent 1 raised an objection that the domestic enquiry conducted against him is invalid on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The two grounds in support of the above submission made before the Labour Court were as follows : (i) The enquiry was conducted in the absence of respondent 1; and (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Dibbadeerappa Vs. Honnamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant130; ILR1978KAR1147; 1978(2)KarLJ177
ORDER1. Defendant-3 made an application to amend his written statement. He wanted to raise a plea of tenancy in respect of the agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit. The suit was for a declaration of right and permanent injunction. In the original written statement, defendant-3 has not raised any plea of tenancy. The proposed amendment has been allowed by the Court. The plaintiff is aggrieved by that Hence, he has preferred the revision petition.2. In my opinion, the Court which has no jurisdiction to determine a question, should not ordinarily allow that question. The proposed amendment relates to the tenancy claimed by defendant 3. If that amendment is allowed, then the issue relating to the tenancy cannot be determined by the Civil Court, and ought to be referred to the Tribunal as required under Section 133 of the Karnataka Laud Reforms Act. I cannot understand why such charity should be extended to defendant-3. It is not as if he has no remedy to establish his ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadas Kelu Naik Vs. V.M. Muddayya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1043
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The petitioner has prayed that the judgment dated 19-7-1077 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Kanara, Karwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1977, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on respondent 1 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar, in C. C. No. 1344 of 1976, and directing that there shall be a de novo trial by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karwar, after registering the case on his file, be set aside,2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (to be hereinafter referred to as the new Code), The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged and issued process. On the accused-respondent 1 appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate decided to try the case summarily by applying the procedure for summary trial as provided by Section 260 of the new Code onwards. On 17-7-1976 the Chief Judicial Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant58; ILR1978KAR1326; 1978(2)KarLJ201
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is instituted under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by original respondent No. 1, the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, and is directed against the judgment and award dated 30-1-1976 passed in Mis. (M. V. C.) No. 54/72 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwar.2. The original petitioner-Kwaja Hussain Shaiksab Bellary-has filed cross objections raising the plea that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs. 7,000/-, he received as ex gratia payment from Esso Company and has further submitted that the loss of future income calculated by the Tribunal is unreasonably low.3. The facts leading up to the present appeal and cross objections are these:--Kwaja Hussain Shaiksab Bellary instituted an application for compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the personal injuries sustained by him as a result of the motor accident that occurred on 25-3-1972 on Gadag-Hubli Road, 5 miles away ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›