Karnataka Court August 1958 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.
S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Urban Circle and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant40; AIR1960Mys40
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) Whether an assessee who commits default in the payment of the advance tax demanded under S. 18A of the Income-tax Act can be made liable to pay a penalty under the provisions of S. 46(1) of the Act is the interesting question that arises in these two writ petitions.(2) The material facts are these :(3) The petitioner who had been previously assessed to income-tax was required under the provisions of S. 18A of the Income-tax Act, to pay the advance tax for the assessment year 1955-56. On his committing default in the payment of such advance tax, the Income-tax Officer, under the provisions of S. 46(1) of the Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 490/- by an order made by him on 23-5-1955. On the assessee continuing to be in default, the Income-tax Officer made a second order on 3-9-1955, imposing a further penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under the provisions of S. 46(1a) of the Act.(4) These writ petitions are presented by the petitioner for certiorari to bring up and quash those ord...
Bharmanna and ors. Vs. Shiragondappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant81; AIR1959Mys81; ILR1958KAR552; (1958)36MysLJ840
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The appellants before us were defendants 1 to 5 in the trial Court. On 26th June 1951 the plaintiffs filed this suit for possession of suit properties consisting of a land and a house as reversioners of one Bhutali, husband of one Laxmibai. It is not disputed that the properties in suit belonged to the said Bhutali and on his death it devolved on Laxmibai as his widow.In the year 1910 Laxmibai remarried one Balappa Desai. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of Laxmibai by the said Balappa Desai. On 27-5-1927 she sold the suit land to the father of defendants 1 and 2. In the year 1951 Laxmibai died. Thereafter on 26th June 1951 the present suit wasinstituted by the plaintiffs as the reversioners of Bhutali, first husband of Laxmibai.2. The suit was resisted by defendants 3, 4 and 5 and also by defendants 1 and 2. The principal ground on which the suit was resisted was that Laxmibai had become the absolute owner of the suit properties by adverse possession and the ...
Venkatrao Vs. Mallappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant164; AIR1959Mys164; ILR1958KAR559; (1958)36MysLJ916
1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the judgment-debtor. The facts giving rise to this appeal may he briefly stated as follows: The Respondent decree holder had filed a suit No. 583/1 of 1952-53 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Gul-barga, on 29-1-19.53 which was decreed on 31-1-I954. The decree is in the following terms: 'The plaintiff is entitled to get two Ras bullocks or their price HS Rs. 800/-.' The decree-holder filed an execution petition on 18-7-1955 for the realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the moveable and in-moveable property of the Judgment-debtor. It appears that the judgment-debtor objected that the relief sought in the execution petition was contrary to the terms of the decree and that he is willing to deliver possession of the bullocks to the decree-holder. It also appears from the application dated 19-12-1955 of the judgment-debtor that two bullocks were, actually brought in the Court, bub the decree-bolder refused to take their deliver...
Mani Subba Rao Vs. K. Anantha Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant153; AIR1959Mys153; 1959CriLJ744; (1958)36MysLJ925
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20 of 1956 directing that a complaint against the petitionerbe laid before the Special First Class Magistrate, Sagar, under Section 476-A read with Section 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences punishable under Sections 193, 465 and 466 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case necessary for appreciation of the several contentions raised by the petitioner briefly stated are as follows: The respondent K. Anantha Bhatta filed a suit against one Nagesh Sait in Original Suit No. 233 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff, Sagar for recovery of certain amounts and got the areca crop standing on garden attached before judgment. The garden on which the areca plants stood belonged to the petitioner and it had been leased out to Nagesh Sait. The petitioner filed an application under Order 211 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure f...
S.i. Mumtaz Yakoob Shah Mian Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant215; AIR1959Mys215
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This Writ Petition and its companion writ petition W. P. No. 156/58 raise the same question. The material facts relating to W. P, 153/58 are these:2. The petitioner in this writ petition was a councillor of the Channapatna Town Municipal Council. On 19-4-1957, a notice purporting to have been issued under the provisions of Sub-section (2) (d) or Section 14 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, was sent to the petitioner under the signature of the President of the Town Municipal Council of Channa-patna. By that notice, the petitioner was informed that if he failed to pay, within the period mentioned in that notice, the arrears of taxes due by him to the Municipal Council, he would incur the disability provided by Sub-section (2) (d) of Section 14 of the Act.3. It is not disputed that the petitioner failed to pay the arrears so demanded of him, consequent on which an order was made by the Government, under the provisions of Sub-section (2) (d) of Section 14 of t...
Kittamma and anr. Vs. B. Subba Rai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant75; AIR1959Mys75; (1958)36MysLJ634
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioners before me have filed Original Suit No. 7/1958 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Mangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority (the Principal Subordinate Judge of South Kanara) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11/1953 on his file is without jurisdiction, ultra vires and is a nullity, and for an injunction restraining the defendants (respondents before me) from executing the said order and taking possession of the house, door No. 22-4, with its outhouses and appurtenant land without payment of compensation for the said house.Along with the plaint they filed interlocutory application No. 14 of 1936 under Section 151 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issue of a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from executing the aforesaid eviction order and obtaining possession thereunder pending disposal of the suit.An ex parte injunction was granted, but the sam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›