Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1967
Reported in : [1967]66ITR212(KAR); [1967]66ITR212(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The 2nd petitioner, the Madras Bangalore Transport Company, is a firm of four partners, P. V. S. Mani, C. Munireddy, C. Venkatareddy and J. Ramakrishnaiah. Of these, C. Venkatareddy is the 1st petitioner. 2. The firm has its principal place of business at Nos. 36-37, Second Line Beach, Madras City, and is an assessee to income-tax the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VIII, Madras. The firm carries on extensive business as a road transport operator and common carrier with over 200 offices situated in various parts of the country including the Mysore State. One of its branch offices is at No. 34, Infantry Road, Bangalore, and another at No. 14, Second Main Road, Taragupet, Bangalore. Two out of the partners are residents of Banglore. C. Munireddy resides at Nanjappa Road, Shantinagar; Venkatareddy, the 1st petitioner, resides at No. 20(1), Sri M. N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore. The partners also are assessees to income-tax in their i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Kant100; AIR1968Mys100; (1967)1MysLJ284
ORDER(1) The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business at 137, Mysore Road, Bangalore, which is an assessee to sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act., 1957. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence) at Bangalore.(2) On 11-5-1965, the respondent in company with certain other officers of the Commercial Taxes Department entered the business premises of the petitioner and seized certain books of account after passing an order to that effect and also issuing a receipt or acknowledgement for the books seized. The order is produced as an annexure to the petition marked Ex. P-1.(3) The petitioner prays that the order mentioned above may be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ and that a direction may be issued for the return of the books seized, to him. The petitioner also prayed for an interim order for the return of books seized subject to an undertaking by him for their production whenever called upon to do so. On admitting the Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1967
Narayana Pai, J.1. The 2nd petitioner, the Madras Bangalore Transport Company, is a firm of four partners P. V. S. Mani, C. Munireddy, C. Venkatareddy and J. Ramakrishniah. Of these, C. Venkatareddy is the 1st petitioner.2. The firm has its principal place of business at Nos. 36-37, Second Line Beach, Madras City, and is an assessee to Income-tax within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VIII, Madras. The Firm carries on extensive business as a road transport operator and common carrier with over 200 offices situated in various parts of the country including the Mysore State, One of its branch offices is at No. 34, Infantry Road, Bangalore, and another at No. 14, Second Main Road, Taragupet, Bangalore. Two out of the partners are residents of Bangalore. C. Munireddy resides on Nanjappa Road Santinagar; Vekatareddy, the 1st petitioner resides at No. 20(1), Sir M. N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore. The Partners also are assessees to income-tax in their i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Mys16; 1968CriLJ71; (1967)1MysLJ256
ORDER(1) In this petition, the complaint made against the order of the First Class Magistrate, Koppal, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that it suffers, among others, from the following infirmities: 1) That exhibits P-2 to P-16, which are the affidavits filed on behalf of the second party, have not been considered by the Magistrate; 2) that there is no finding that there was a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and public tranquillity; 3) that the Magistrate refused to summon some of the witnesses whom both party No. 1 and part No. 2 wanted to examine or cross-examine; and since the order suffers from these infirmities, it is urged that it is liable to be set aside. (2) Mr. Muralidhara Rao, appearing for the respondents (members of the first party), submits that the order made by the Magistrate is an elaborate order in which he has considered the documentary evidence produced by both the parties, and that though there is some infirmity in the order, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-03-1967
Reported in : 1968CriLJ419
ORDERK. Bhimiah, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Revision Petition against the order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Mysore Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1965 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the IInd Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Mysore, in C.C. No. 1146 of 1964.2. The main question for decision is whether a Sessions Judge empowered under Section 17(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be hereinafter referred to as the Code, to dispose of urgent applications by a Sessions Judge of an adjoining Division gets power to hear and dispose of criminal cases pending on the file of the adjoining Sessions Division?3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the determination of the above question are as follows:Sri A. Panchaksharaiah was working as Sessions Judge of Mysore District. He was to retire on 7.11.1965. The Registrar, High Court of Mysore, addressed a letter to Sri Panchaksharaiah which reads as follows: Sub : Handing over charge on attainingthe ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-10-1967
Reported in : AIR1967Mys210; 1967CriLJ1536
1. The accused Basavarajaswamy who has been tried in Sessions Case No. 70/8/1964 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, is convicted for the offences under Sections 467 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 52 of the Indian Post Offices Act. He was sentenced for the offences of forgery and criminal misappropriation under Sections 467 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 in default to undergo it further term of rigorous imprisonment for three months under each count The Sessions Judge did not award any sentence under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act. The substantive sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the Basavarajaswamy was the Branch post Master of the Chintapally Branch Post Office in October. 1959 Mallikarjunappa (P.W. 1) gent a money order of an amount of Rs. 98 from Harsur Branch Post Office october 16, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-17-1967
Reported in : AIR1969Kant114; AIR1969Mys114; 1969CriLJ496
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 193 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bijapur, and sentenced to suffer one year's R. I. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Bijapur, the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced to three months' R. I. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the said order of the Sessions Judge confirming her conviction.2. In P. R. Case No. 5/1963, in a proceeding under section 512 Cr.P.C. the petitioner examined as a witness by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Bagewadi, and made a certain statement on oath. When the petitioner was examined in the committal proceedings in P. R. Case No. 2/65, she made another statement wholly irreconcilable and contradictory to the previous statement. After issuing show cause notice, the learned Magistrate directed that a complaint be filed against the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-23-1967
Reported in : AIR1967Mys199; 1967CriLJ1534
H. Hombe Gowda, C.J. 1. This revision petition is filed under Sections 215 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obviously a mistake andit is not applicable) for (finishing of the order, dated 10-1-1967, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, Ex. 6, in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1966 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners (accused) to quash the committal order, dated 18-11-1966, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Ranebennur, in C. C. No. 630 of 1966 2. A charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was placed against the petitioners accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranebennur, in C. C. No. 630 of 1966. The learned Magistrate proceeded to deal with the case under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure When the learned Magistrate, was considering the papers filed under Section 173, Cr. P. C. a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-02-1967
Reported in : AIR1967Mys231; 1967CriLJ1661; ILR1967KAR1055; (1967)1MysLJ347
ORDER1. These two Criminal Revision cases involve common questions of law and fact and therefore, they are disposed of by a common order2. The petitioner is the accused in both the cases before the trial court. On 30-10-1966, he was found in possession of 79 bags of rice. The police seized those bags and registered a case in Crime No, 295/1 of 1966 and produced the rice bags before the Court Again, on 2-11-1966, they searched and found in his possession 135 bags of rice. They registered a case in Crime No. 302/1 of 1966 and produced the rice bags before the Court. In the former case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to be hereinafter called the 'Act' and in the latter case, the offence said to have been committed by the accused is under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of Defence of India Rules, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' and Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Act In the F. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-04-1967
Reported in : [1968]67ITR675(KAR); [1968]67ITR675(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ352
Venkatswami, J. 1. These writ petitions have been preferred by four divided brothers, all sons of one S. L. Mannaji Rao, challenging the orders in revision passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, under section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Each of the petitioner has preferred two separate petitions questioning the orders of the Commissioner both under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act. 2. The assessment year in question in all these petition is 1963-64. The granting of relief to the petitioner depends on the determination of the question whether the writ petitioner, who are all assessees both under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act, should be assessed as individuals or as members of a Hindu undivided family. In these circumstances, it is sufficient to consider the facts in one set of these writ petitions, filed by S. M. Ananda Rao, namely, Writ Petition No. 265 of 1966 and Writ Petition No. 272 of...
Tag this Judgment!