Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ111
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, in a case Under Section 145 a the Cr.PC The petitioner constituted party-I, while the respondent No. 1 constituted Party-Il and it was stated 'hat there was a dispute as to possession between them in respect of Survey Numbers 323/2, 324/1 and 325/1 of Ravadi village in Ron Taluk. The police report was submitted to the Magistrate on 6-3-1975 which referred to that dispute and there was an allegation that the parties were likely to commit breach of the peace. Accordingly, the J earned Magistrate passed the preliminary order and directed both the parties to adduce evidence by affidavits. Subsequently, that evidence was considered and party-II was held to be entitled to possession. Party-I felt aggrieved of that order and preferred the present revision.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the evidence by affidavits could not be adduced in vi...
Tag this Judgment!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!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!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!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-10-1977
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Kar)79; 1976(1)KarLJ233; [1977]40STC400(Kar)
D.B. Lal, J. 1. These are there are there criminal Revision Petitions presumably under S. 13(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') against the order of the J.M.F.C. Siddapur, issuing a distress warrant to the Deputy Commissioner, North Kanara, Karwar, to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. 2. Since a common question of law and fact arises, these three petitions can be disposed of by a single order. 3. The uncontroverted facts are, that M/s Vigneshwara company is a registered partnership firm, and it is a dealer as much to pay the sales tax. The petitioners as well as some of the respondents are the partners of the firm. The Commercial Tax Officer passed an assessment under against the firm and the proceedings under S. 13(3)(b) of the Act for recovery are being initiated against the partners of that firm. In view of S. 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for which a complaint was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer before a Magistrate,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-10-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1854
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. These are three criminal revision petitions presumably Under Section 13(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') against the order of the J. M. F. C., Siddapur, issuing a distress warrant to the Deputy Commissioner, North Kanara, Karwar, to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.2. Since a common question of law and fact arises, these three petitions can be disposed of by a single order.3. The uncontroverted facts are, that M/s. Vigneshwara Company is a registered partnership firm, and it is a dealer as such to pay the Sales Tax. The petitioners as well as some of the respondents are the partners of the firm. The Commercial Tax Officer passed an assessment order against the firm and the proceedings Under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act for recovery are being initiated against the partners of that firm, In view of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for which a complaint was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer before a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-10-1977
ORDERLal, J. 1. These are three criminal revision petitions presumably under section 13(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') against the order of the J.M.F.C., Siddapur, issuing a distress warrant to the Deputy Commissioner, North Kanara, Karwar, to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. 2. Since a common question of law and fact arises, these three petitions can be disposed of by a single order. 3. The uncontroverted facts are that M/s. Vigneshwara Company is a registered partnership firm, and it is a dealer as such to pay the sales tax. The petitioners as well as some of the respondents are the partners of the firm. The Commercial Tax Officer passed an assessment order against the firm and the proceedings under section 13(3)(b) of the Act for recovery are being initiated against the partners of that firm. In view of section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for which a compliant was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer before a Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Kant132; ILR1977KAR545; 1977(1)KarLJ247
1. the question that arises for consideration in this second appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit out of which this appeal arises.2. The plaintiffs in 0. S. No 581 of 1967 on the file of the Munsiff, Tumkur, instituted the said suit for recovery of damages or compensation for loss of goods, which had been consigned by defendant 3 under Railway Receipt No. 344699 Invoice No. C-42 dated 18-9-1965 at Wadi Bunder Railway Station, Bombay, in favour of the plaintiffs. The place of destination of the goods was mentioned as Bangalore City Railway Station in the said Railway Receipt, Defendant 3 sent the Railway Receipt to the plaintiffs through the State Bank of Mysore, Tumkur Branch, Tumkur. The plaintiffs paid the amount payable to defendant 3 through the State Bank of Mysore, Tumkur, and took delivery of the Railway Receipt with the endorsement made in their favour by the Bank. The goods in question were not delivered to the plaintiffs till about Janua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-21-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1369
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. These two Criminal Petitions presumably Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arise out of a proceeding Under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Mundgod, District North Kanara.2. The Police Sub-Inspector, Mundgod submitted a report before the Magistrate, on 2-3-1976 alleging that there was likelihood of breach of the peace at the instance of the petitioners and the opposite party involved who is one Sri B. F. Bendigeri, President of Mundgod Taluk Congress (R) Committee, it was stated that the petitioners are the President, General Secretary and members of the Taluk Congress (O) Committee of Mundgod. The report of the Police Sub-Inspector, indicated that the petitioners 'colluded and decided to bring a party from Belgaum or Dharwar to murder Sri B. F. Bendigeri.' This they intend doing because, B. F. Bendigeri was appointed as President of Taluk PLD Bank, Mundgod and some person of his choice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-21-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1544
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This is a petition Under Sections 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore causing attachment of the disputed land and appointment of a receiver in respect thereof, presumably Under Section 146 of the said Code. As the order of the learned Magistrate indicates, the Police Sub-Inspector, Yeshawanthapur filed a report Under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that in respect of Survey numbers 37, 38 and 41 of that village a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between the petitioners who were the second party and respondents 1 to 5, who were the first party before him. It was mentioned that one of the parties applied to the Land Reforms Tribunal for conferring occupancy rights and besides that several complaints were filed by the respective parties claiming possession in their favour. There were also standing crops of Ragi, Avare and Jowar and the learned Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!