Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-05-1978
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Kant212; 1978(1)KarLJ478
ORDER1. These two writ petitions are presented by the same person against two orders of the Land Tribunal, Badami, Taluk dated 23-11-1975 produced as Exs, 'A' and 'B' along with the writ petition. By the said orders the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions in respect of 6 acres of land in S. No. 36 and 5 acres in S. No, 81 of Pattadakal village.2. Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal had held no enquiry as contemplated under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. He pointed out that the Land Tribunal has filled up the particulars furnished by the applicant in his Form No. 7 on printed forms and that constitutes the order of the Land Tribunal.3. I have gone through the certified copies of Exs. 'A' and 'B'. The submission made by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao is fully justified. Except the filling up of the Survey n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1978
Reported in : 1978(1)KarLJ161; [1978]41STC278(Kar)
Rama Jois, J. 1. The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Belgaum the respondent in the petition, is challenged in this writ petition by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below : 'Order of Seizure U/s. 28(A)(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 : I visited the business premises of M/s. SY. Modagekar and Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10-3-1976 at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.P. (Enf) III, N.Z., Belgaum and the C.T.I's of the Office. At the time of my inspection Shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the Partner was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day book upto 5-3-1976 on which the closing balance was not struck and I have signed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1978
Reported in : [1978]41STC298(Kar)
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence), Belgaum - the respondent in the petition - is challenged in this writ petition by a registered partnership firm being a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below : 'Order of seizure under section 28(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 : I visited the business premises of M/s. S. Y. Modagekar & Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10th March, 1976, at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.O. (Enf.) III, N.Z., Belgaum, and the C.T.Is. of the officer. At the time of my inspection shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the partner, was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day-book up to 5th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1978
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Kar)0089A
Rama Jois, J. - The legality of search and seizure of certain account books made by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Belgaum the respondent in the petition, is challenged in this writ petition by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The impugned order made by the respondent being relevant is extracted below :'Order of Seizure U/s. 28(A)(3) of the K.S.T. Act, 1957 :I visited the business premises of M/s. SY. Modagekar and Sons, Ganeshwar Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum, on 10-3-1976 at about 6-30 P.M. and conducted the inspection along with C.T.P. (Enf) III, N.Z., Belgaum and the C.T.Is of the Office. At the time of my inspection Shri Shasikant Shamrao Modagekar, the Partner was present and he produced the current books of account and sale bills for inspection. On examination it was found that the assessee had written the day book upto 5-3-1976 on which the closing balance was not struck and I have signed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1233
N.D. Venkatesh, J.1. Since an important question of law is involved in these petitions, the same have been referred to the Division Bench by Nesargi, J. The question of law involved is whether the impugned orders are 'interlocutory orders' as contemplated under Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and therefore the revisions in question are barred?2. The facts that gave rise to these petitions briefly stated are these:These petitions have been filed under Section 397 (1) of the Code.Cr. R.P. No. 205 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in Cr. Mis. No. 24 of 1974-75 on the file of the Sr. Divisional Magistrate, Pandavapura, against the order of that Court made under Section 112 of the Code; Cr. R.P. 296 of 1975 has been filed by some of the respondents in No. CR/MAG/40/74-75 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kopala, Raichur District, against the order of that Court taking steps against them under Section 107 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-02-1978
Reported in : ILR1978KAR1229; [1979]116ITR84(KAR); [1979]116ITR84(Karn); 1978(2)KarLJ105
Malimath, J.1. The Division Bench consisting of Venkataramaiah J. and Venkatachala J. has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench : 'Where a person holds the agricultural land in question as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others, can assessment be made in accordance with s. 10(1)(a) read with s. 3(3) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957, ignoring s. 10(2)(a) of that Act ?' 2. S. 3(3) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), will have no application to a case where a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others. S. 3(3) of the Act applies only if the person holds property as tenants-in-common and derives agricultural income. If a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ730
ORDERN.R. Kudoor, J.1. The seven petitioners in this criminal petition were the accused in C. C. No. 312 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Yelburga. They have filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the above criminal case and to discharge them.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:The respondent Mariappa, a resident of Yelburga in Raichur District, has filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that all of them conjointly trespassed into the land bearing S. No. 433/A situate at Yelburga which was in his possession at about 11 a.m. on 11-2-1976 and forcibly cut the standing wheat crop raised by him and took it away with dishonest intention. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners. After the petitioners entered appearance, the respondent examined two witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned Magistrate, on assessing the material produced before him, framed a ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-15-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Kant125; 1978(1)KarLJ438
ORDER1. The legality of the order of the Licensing Authority under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') refusing to regrant the cinematograph licence to the petitioner, on the ground that the possession of the petitioner of the building in which she has been exhibiting the cinematograph films and the equipment, is not lawful and the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the Licensing Authority is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.2. The petitioner became the lessee of the premises together with equipments meant for exhibiting cinematograph films, called IMPERIAL TALKIES situate in the City of Bangalore. The People's Charity Fund, a Trust registered under the Trust Act, is the owner, and lessors of the aforesaid building and equipments. After the expiry of the earlier period of leases of the same premises and equipment, the latest lease which is relevant for this case came into existence through a registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-13-1978
Reported in : [1979]44STC39(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The common question which arises in these petitions is whether the Commercial Tax Officer can apply to the Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of arrears of sales tax from an assessee under the Act, who is a defaulter, without exhausting the other modes of recovery provided under the Act. The learned Magistrate, Yadgiri, has, in the cases out of which these petitions arise, dismissed the applications made under section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the applicant had not exhausted the other remedies available to him under law for recovery of the tax due. We do not agree with the construction placed by the learned Magistrate on section 13(3)(b) of the Act. What that provision says is that an application could be made to a Magistrate for recovery of sales tax due from a defaulter without prejudice to the other remedies open to the applicant. It does no...
Tag this Judgment!