Karnataka Court July 1978 Judgments

Gurubasavaiah and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1979CriLJ603

G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal instituted by original Accused-1 and Accused-2, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Mysore, on 23-11-1977, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1977 on his file.2. The appeal arises this way: Deceased Madaiah alias Kambliah was residing with his son P. W. 9. Mahadevaiah and his daughter-in-law P. W. 13 Maniyamma in a portion of the house in Tayur village. In the other portion of the house, his elder brother P. W. 10 Rangaiah alias Meddiah was residing along with the members of his family. Accused 1 Gurubasavaiah alias Suntaiah and his son Rangaiah alias Rangappa Accused 2 along with Chikkamaramma Accused-3, wife of Accused-1, were residing in the neighbourhood, about 30 feet away to the west of the house of the deceased. As evidence discloses, deceased Madaiah was an ex-convict who was sentenced for life for murdering a woman. He had ...

The Ballarpur Straw Board Mills Limited (Now Known as Ballarpur Indust ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1978]42STC401(Kar)

ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. These two revision petitions arise out of an application made by M/s. The Ballarpur Straw Board Mills Ltd., Karwar, (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for inclusion of certain items of goods in its registration certificate for the year 1971-72 for the purpose of obtaining C forms. The assessee had commenced the construction of a factory for manufacturing caustic soda and liquid chlorine at Karwar in or about the year 1971-72. For the purpose of erecting the said factory and manufacturing the chemicals referred to above, it required certain items of goods which had to be purchased from outside the State. It, therefore, requested the Commercial Tax Officer to include those items in the registration certificate to enable it to have the benefit of the concessional rate of taxation under the Act. He however rejected the prayer of the assessee in respect of the following...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The common question referred to us by the ITA Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in these two cases under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the income of the assessee-company, viz., Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd., is exempt under Section 11 of the I. T. Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd. and the assessment years in question are 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and was accorded recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, with effect from February 16, 1963. Its objects can be gathered from its memorandum of association. The principal objects are :(i) facilitating the transaction of business on the stock exchange and establishing for that purpose a clearing house for the transaction of the members;(ii) ere...

Jaya Frame Works Vs. the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and or ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1982]50STC24(Kar)

Venkataramiah, J. 1. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the goods which are treated as glassware and taxed as such by the Commercial Tax Officer are really glassware or whether they are merely glass sheet. The Commercial Tax Officer did not collect any evidence before coming to the conclusion that the goods in question were glassware and not glass sheet. In a similar case, i.e., Dongare and Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore (STA No. 1 of 1974 decided on 9th March, 1978), this Court has remanded the case to the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the said question after recording the evidence. Following the said decision, we set aside the assessment order in so far as the turnover relating to glassware is concerned and remand the case to the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the question whether the goods constituted glassware or glass sheet after recording the necessary evidence. The revision petition is accordingly dispose...

The State of Karnataka Vs. Gangiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1979CriLJ732

ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of discharge dated 27-6-1977 passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunigal in C. C. No. 79 of 1976 discharging the respondent-accused (who has remained absent though served with the notice of this Revision Petition) of the offence under Section 16 read with Section 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance, 1975.2. The Kunigal Police filed a charge sheet against the respondent on 2-2-1976 alleging that the respondent had committed an offence under Section 16 read with Section 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance, 1975.3. It is proper to narrate here itself that though the said Ordinance was promulgated on 25-10-1975, the same was passed into an Act by 9-2-1976 as Act No. 19 of 1976. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act called as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 25-10-1975 itself, i.e. the da...

State of Karnataka Vs. Lobo Medicals and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1978CriLJ1837

G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed on 29-8-1977 by the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, in C. C. No. 733/1975, on his file acquitting the accused-respondent for an offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with paragraph 15 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970.2. The appeal arises this way : Accused-1 is the firm running under the name and style, M/s. Lobo Medicals, Door No. 102, Ward No. 14, Hampankatta, Mangalore. It trades in drugs holding a valid licence, A-2 is the proprietor of the firm being a qualified person. On 3-10-1972 one of the Drug Inspectors, namely, S. Shantarama Shetty (P. W. 1), inspected the sales premises of Accused-1-firm and discovered that under cash bill No. 03279, dated 29-9-1972, the accused sold 6 x 3 M.L. Ampules of Neurobion Merck of batch No. 30271 and 27371 for Rs. 15/- plus the taxes and further that he had sold 3 x 20 ta...

Joe Pereira and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1979Kant12

Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The facts in all these petitions are similar and the question raised is also common, and therefore, these petitions shall stand disposed of by this order. 2. For the purpose of determining the question, we may conveniently refer to the facts in W. P. No. 475 of 1973. The petitioner therein is a coffee planter and also holds some agricultural lands. Respondent-3, Tahsildar has called upon the petitioner to sell 68 quintals and 82-1/2 Kgs. of paddy to the agent of the State Government, that is, Large Scale Co-operative Society, Sakleshpur by the notice issued under the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Levy Order'). In the Levy Order, the price of paddy of different varieties has been fixed under the schedule thereunder. The rate for the variety of paddy to be surrendered by the petitioner prescribed therein was Rs. 52/- per quintal. It was the same rate payable or paid to all the petitioners. The common contention of the ...

Govinda Shetty Vs. Shivarama Shetty and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1979Kant110; ILR1978KAR1896; 1978(2)KarLJ439

1. A suit for partition claiming 2/3 share in the agricultural lands was filed by Respondents 1 and 2. The defendant in the suit contended that item 1 of the suit property comprised in Survey No. 73/20 has been in possession and enjoyment of one Honnayya Shetty and the remaining items of properties are in the possession and enjoyment of Govinda Shetty as challenging (tenancy at will) tenants, the same having been leased out to them by Sindhu Shedthy about 30 years ago. The defendant further contended that both the aforesaid persons have filed declarations for registration of the occupancy rights under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) before the Land Tribunal, and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim possession of any of the items of suit properties under the guise of partition suit filed by them.Govinda Shetty referred to above is none other than the husband of the defendant and Sindhu Shedthy referred to above is the mot...

K. Subba Rao Etc. Vs. State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1979CriLJ369

ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. These petitions have come up for admission and orders on I. A. I. filed in both the cases.2. The petitions are admitted and by consent of advocates on both sides, they are taken up for final hearing.3. As common question of law arises in both these petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.4. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 was the accused in C, C. No. 915 of 1976, in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (III Court), Bangalore City. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 248 of 1978 was the accused in C. C. No. 1304 of 1976 in the same court.5. On 25-6-1976, Sri J. Joseph, advocate filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 and got him enlarged on bail. On 24-6-1978 one witness for the prosecution was present. The petitioner in criminal revision petition No. 247 of 1978 was not present and Sri Joseph filed an application under Section 317 of the Code of...

K. Veerabasappa Vs. the Court of District Judge at Chitradurga and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1979Kant40

ORDER1. On 20-3-1971 the petitioner filed an application under S. 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act') in the Court of the Munsiff, Davanagere, for eviction of respondent No. 3(hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') who is admittedly in occupation of premises bearing Door No. 591/1 situated in Davanagere City more fully described in the Schedule annexed to the petition, which was resisted by the respondent. In his application, the petitioner principally pleaded that the premises were required to run the business concern of 'Kirwadi Veerabhadrappa & Sons' and 'Kirwadi Anjanappa and Sons' and later amended as 'Kirwadi Anjanappa and Brothers'. In the objections statement filed, the respondent denied the plea of bona fide requirement of the premises pleaded by the petitioner and did not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner. On a consideration of the evidence placed by the partie...