Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-1979
Reported in : ILR1979KAR1306; [1979]117ITR47(KAR); [1979]117ITR47(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under s. 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), reads as under: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a gift of Rs. 80, 115 by the assessee on January 22, 1967, which was liable to gift-tax ?' 2. The assessee, Smt. B. Muniyamma, was a partner in the firm, M/s. Lakshminarayana Rice Mills, along with her husband, Jyothinagaram Chikkavenkata Swamaiah, representing the joint Hindu family of which he was the Karta. The assessee was a partner in her individual capacity. On January 22, 1967, the said firm was dissolved and on taking accounts, it was found that she was entitled to Rs. 80, 114.99. In the books of the firm, the amount standing to her credit was transferred to the account of her husband. On the next day, i.e., on January 23, 1967, the entire amount which was standing to the credit o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1979
Reported in : 1979CENCUS493D; 2000(123)ELT525(Kar)
M.S. Nesargi, J. 1. In this appeal filed under section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has prayed that the sentence passed by the II Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore in C.C. No. 204/76 against the respondents who were accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 204/76 be enhanced as the same is inadequate taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed by them. 2. The prosecution case held proved by the learned Magistrate is that at about 5 p.m. on 8-12-1972 P.W. 1 got creditable information that contraband gold was being transported in a lorry bearing No. MYX 8249 and he intercepted the same. He was accompanied by the staff. Accused 1 was driver and accused 2 was the cleaner. P.W. 1 found a cavity underneath the seat of A-1. That cavity contained a cloth jacket in which there were two packets one containing 500 pellets and another packets containing 300 pellets of primary gold of 10 tolas bearing foreign markings. They were seized under a panchanama as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-1979
Reported in : 1979(1)KarLJ338; (1979)IILLJ49Kant
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the order dated 30-6-1978 made in Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1978 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, affirming the order dated 3-6-1978 passed on interlocutory Applications Nos. 1 & II in OS. No. 113 of 1978 by the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga. 2. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in OS No. 113 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga. The plaintiffs are the employees in the company of defendant-1. There is a criminal case pending trial against the plaintiffs in CC. No. 1 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga, in respect of charges framed against them having been accused of offences of theft in a building. Pending trial of the said charges of theft by the Magistrate Court, defendant No. 1 having appointed defendant No. 2 to hold a parallel Departmental Enquiry under the Standing Orders of defendant 1 - company against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-09-1979
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1183
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this appeal filed by the State under Section 377 of the Criminal P.C. it is prayed that the sentence imposed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on the respondent who was the accused in C. C. No. 3106 of 1977, is contrary to law and the same is to be enhanced.2. At about 7-10 P. M. on 29-11-1977 the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.J. Park Police Station visited the petty shop of the respondent-accused along with pan-chas. He found that the respondent-accused had kept for sale certain books containing obscene (photos) books in Kannada, English, Tamil and Telugu language and certain books containing obscene literature. He seized the same under a panchanama, completed the investigation and placed charge-sheet.3. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed a charge against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 292(2) of the I.P.C. and called upon him to give his plea. The respondent-accused pleaded guilty and the plea was ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant209; 1979(2)KarLJ412
ORDER1. On 31st July, 1976, the petitioner made an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga (Respondent No. 1), for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Chikkabadihalli to Kadur and back viz., Thippareddihally, Oblapura, Jajur, C. R. Jajur, Nagondanahally, Karikere, Meerasabihaalli, Dodderi Challakere, Ganjugunte, Madhure, Sondekere, J. N Kote, D.S. Hally, Kurubarahatty, Chitradurga Chitrahally, C. R. Eachagatta, H. D. Pura. Nakikere, Kittadahally, Madadkere, Hosadurga, Antharagatte, Tamatadahally Gate, Sollapura, Hirenallur and Giriyapura for one return trip or two single trips per day. This application was duly published as required by Section 57 (3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Sixteen operators including the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, filed objection& The first respondent considered the application in subject Number 88177 and came to the conclusion that there was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-03-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant75
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Rama Jois, J., as he doubted the correctness of the 'view taken by Malimath, J., in Ex. S. A. No. 43 of 1977 regarding the Jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge to execute a decree for eviction transferred to that Court by the Court of the Munsiff which had passed that decree.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The petitioners herein had filed an application under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of respondent-1 herein, the Cooperative Tourist and Transport Society Ltd., in H. R. C. No. 723 of 1971 on the file of the Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore who granted a decree for eviction. Later, the petitioners filed an execution application, Ex. Case No. 623 of 1975, in the same Court. During the pendency of the execution proceeding'. the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act No. 31 of 1975) (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1979
Reported in : 1980CriLJ751
M. Nagappa, J.1. The petitioners, Who were the accused before the lower court, have challenged in this revision petition the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 16-6-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shorapur, in C. C. No. 464 of 1978, registering a case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 of the I.P.C. and issuing summons to them.2. Few facts of the case are that the complainant, who is the second respondent herein, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Shorapur, stating the the accused persons are related to each other and they are residing at Kabadgera in Shorapur town. On 14-6-1978 at about 11 a. m., it is alleged by the complainant, that he was repairing the 'katta' in front of his house bearing No. 1-13-43 situate at Kabadgera in Shorapur town and at that time the accused persons came there and objected for the repairs of the 'katta', for which the complainant said that if they had got any objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant95
Venkatachaliah, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for the opinion of the Full Bench.'Whether a property which was an agricultural land at the time of letting and had ceased to be agricultural land an the date of the petition for eviction is a 'Premises' within the meaning of Section 3 (n) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, and would attract provisions of Sections of Section 21 of the Act?''2. The matter arises out of Proceedings for eviction under proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') instituted by the petitioner against respondents in H. R. C. No. 287 of 1968 on the file of the Mummify, Hubble, respecting certain lands which, at the time of letting, were agricultural lands; but, which as on the date of institution of the Proceedings came within the limits of Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation and used by the lesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-11-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant22
ORDER1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is the owner of the lands bearing S Nos. 71/5, 71/4 and 73/7 of Kaikere village, Virajpet Taluk, has challenged the validity of the notifications issued under Ss. 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), (as amended by Karnataka Act 17 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. By the preliminary notification dated 6-8-1975, the lands bearing S. Nos. 71/1, 71/3, 73/1 and 73/6 belong- to the petitioner were, proposed to be acquired for the purpose of opening a road from Gonikoppal Virajpet Main Road deviating near Cauvery College and leading to Vokkaligar Gadde. The petitioner has filed his objections and after enquiring into the objections, and after hearing the petitioner, the Asstt. Commissioner, Mercara Sub-Division made a report under S. 5-A of the Act. Thereafter the final notification dated Nil, under S. 6 of the Act came to be published in' the Official Gazette co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-1979
Reported in : 1980CriLJ171
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. The appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1978, convicting him for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that, the deceased Muthu and the accused were, sometime earlier to the incident which took place at about 9.30 P. M. on 7-12-1977, friends. P. W. 15 Fathima is the wife of Muthu. As Muthu could not carry on in his profession as bar-tender he took up vending illicit liquor. He enlisted the assistance of the accused on payment basis. The accused started cheating him in the business. Muthu warned the accused on many occasions. It is also the case of the prosecution that sometime earlier to the incident, Muthu had caused injuries on the hands of the accused and the accused nurtured grievance against Muthu. When the ac...
Tag this Judgment!