Karnataka Court November 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant85; AIR1958Mys85
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioner before us is the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd., managed by Messrs. Binny and Co. Ltd., The prayer of the petitioner is for the issue of write and directions and in particular a writ of certiorari and for quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.C. No. 11/55 dated 25-9-1956. The facts on which this petition is founded may be shortly stated as follows:2. The petitioner had applied, under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act -- Central Act XX of 1946 -- to the certifying authority constituted under the said Act for certification of draft standing orders which were submitted by the petitioner. The authority concerned, after due notice, certified the same on 16-7-1955.The 3rd respondent (The Binny Mills Labour Association) having taken exception to a number of standing orders submitted by the Management and certified by the certifying authority raised an industrial dispute with refer...
Sangappa Mallappa Kodli and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant7; AIR1959Mys7; 1959CriLJ63; (1958)36MysLJ424
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. There are two sets of Petitioners before us. They have been ordered to be detained under the Preventive Detention Act. It is not disputed before us that with regard to the first set of Petitioners, the order of confirmation which is required to be made under Section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act was not made immediately after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board made under Section 10 of the said Act, nor was it made within three months from the date of detention. With regard to the second group of Petitioners, it is admitted by both sides that the order of confirmation was made within three months from the date of detention.2. With regard to the first set of Petitioners, several grounds were taken in support of their petitions. The first ground is that the order of confirmation made by the Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act should have been made within a period, of three months from the date of detentio...
S.M. Papiah and ors. Vs. K.N. Papaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant169; AIR1959Mys169; ILR1958KAR17; (1958)36MysLJ415
1. This appeal raises a point of some importance. The appellant in this appeal had originally obtained a decree in O. S. No. 281 /24-25 for money and in execution thereof attached the present suit schedule property. Thereafter the said property was sold on 12-9-1940 and the Appellant himself purchased the same. On 25-8-1944 the sale was confirmed. After confirmation of the sale the plaintiff filed a petition for delivery of possession of the properly. When he went to take possession, he was resisted by one Vasanthappa.The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition against said Vasanthappa for removal of the obstruction. The said Vasanthappa appeared and filed a statement contending that the property belonged to him. The plaintiff's petition was heard and dismissed by the Court on 11-8-1948 on the ground that it was not filed within 30 days from the date of obstruction. Thereafter the Appellant filed this suit for a declaration of his title to the property and for possession.The suit was dis...
M. Parmanand and anr. Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant70; AIR1958Mys70; (1958)36MysLJ199
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. There is only one point raised in these two petitions and it arises in this way. The Petitioner in W. P. No. 134 of 55 is the son and the petitioner in W. P. No. 135 of 55 is his father. Both of them were partners in a firm known as 'Chandiram Brothers' dealing in Silk goods at Bangalore. The son was assessed on 31-3-1954 and the father was assessed on 30-12-1954, in respect of their income for the assessment year 1950-51. In the order of assessment, which was made under Section 23 (3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, it was stated that the assessment was made subject to revision under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act on determination of the correct share of income in the firms accounts.Thereafter on 29th March 1955 the firm was assessed, and the total income assessed was Rs. 93,461/-. On such assessment it was found that the previous assessments of the petitioners were less than what they should have been, and thereupon the Income Tax Officer, purporting to act und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›