Karnataka Court December 1954 Judgments
H.R. Patel Vs. C.G. Venkatalakshamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant65; AIR1955Mys65
Medapa, C.J. 1. The suit is for a declaration that the defendant who is constructing a house next to that of the plaintiff is bound to construct it in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Municipality when it formed the sites and for an injunction restraining the defendant from constructing the house contrary to those conditions and for the removal of such portion of the building as has been built contrary to the conditions. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff according to his valuation is correct as held by Venkataramalya J. or whether he has to pay court-fee on half the value of the property calculated, as if the suit is for possession of the house, as held by Balakrishnaiya J. The latter would be correct if Clause (iv) (c) of Section 4, Mysore Court-fees Act, is applicable with its proviso. If the proviso is not applicable, the plaintiff is entitled to put any value on the relief claimed whether the suit falls under Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Gangappa Vs. Boregowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant91; AIR1955Mys91
ORDERVenkata Ramaiya and Balakrishnaiya, JJ.In a suit on a pronote, the plaintiff obtained an attachment before judgment. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court. Subsequent to the dismissal of the suit the property was sold by the original owners to third persons. On appeal from the judgment of dismissal the suit was decreed and that decision was confirmed in the second appeal. In pursuance of the ultimate decree the properties which were attached before judgment in the trial Court were brought to sale and were purchased by strangers and the said rule having been confirmed, the properties were delivered by the court to the purchasers. The material point on which the decision in this appeal turns is whether the attachment before judgment, which ceased with the dismissal of the suit, is revived, when the decision of dismissal is reversed by the emperor Court. In 32 Mys C. C. R. 97 (A), it is laid down that 'the reversal of the judgment of dismissal on appeal does not operate to revive...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Narasimha Raghavachar Vs. S.S. Sengodi Mudaliar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant79; AIR1955Mys79
ORDER1. This case has been referred to a Division - Bench by the learned Judge before whom it was first posted for hearing as the point Involved for decision is said to be a novel one about which there Is no ruling of tills Court. The question raised is whether a stranger can be directed or rather compelled at the Instance of a party to & suit to allow a Commission appointed by the Court to enter upon his lands for purpose of inspection and preparation of an inventory as regards stumps of trees etc. On the application I. A. 23 filled by the plaintiff in a suit relating to partnership after passing of a preliminary decree a Commissioner was appointed to make a report about the quality & number of trees cut and removed some years ago by seeing the stumps. It appears that the petitioner sold the trees to the defendant in the suit under Ex. VIII or Ex. M and that the information sought for has a bearing on the final decree to be passed in the case. The petitioner offered obstruction to the...
Tag this Judgment!City Tobacco Mart Vs. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR549(KAR); [1955]27ITR549(Karn)
Medapa, C.J. 1. The petitioners in these four petitions pray under the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition against the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the notice under section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act or in the alternative for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. 2. The impugned proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Officer Urban Circle, and by the Special Income-tax Officer, Bangalore, on 15th March, 1951, 29th March, 1952, 2nd December, 1953, and 24th February, 1954, respectively for the purpose of the Mysore Income-tax Act, the escaped income of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to start such proceedings. The argument in support of this contention is two-fold : (1) that section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act stood repealed on and from 1st April, 1959, and that therefore the notice issued under that section by the I...
Tag this Judgment!City Tobacco Mart and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant49; AIR1955Mys49
Medapa, C.J. 1. The petitioners in these four petitions pray under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ or prohibition against the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the notice under Section 34, Mysore Income-tax Act or in the alternative for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. 2. The impugned proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax officer, Urban Circle and by the Special Income-tax Officer, Bangalore, on 15-3-1951, 29-3-1952, 2-12-1953 and 24-2-1954 respectively for the purpose of assessing under Section 34, Mysore Income-tax Act, the escaped income of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to start such proceedings. The argument in support of this contention is two-fold: (1) that Section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act stood, repealed on and from April 1, 1950 and that therefore the notice issued under that section by the Income-tax Officer af...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Nanjundeswara Krishnayya Vs. State of Coorg
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1957Kant93; AIR1957Mys93; (1957)35MysLJ26
Mallappa, J. 1. The contention of the petitioner is that persons like him holding, land under what is -known as Sagu tenure in Coorg have to pay double the assessment than persons who own similar lands under Jama tenure have to pay for similar pieces of land; that moreover the latter could use a gun without a license, while the former is required to obtain a license for that purpose. As this is contended to be discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, this application has been filed for the issue of necessary directions or order to the State of Coorg by its Chief Secretary, the Respondent in the case, toreduce the assessment of the land of the petitioner to the level of the assessment of Jama lands and also to alloy; the petitioner to possess a gun without a license. 2. The respondent's affidavit discloses that it is true that the assessment payable on the lands held on Jama tenure and that payable on lands on Sagu tenure differ from each other, but that this does not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›