Karnataka Court November 1960 Judgments
S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR125(KAR); [1961]41ITR125(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This is a reference under the provisions of section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, on an application made by an assessment years. 2. In respect of income of the assessee during the four assessment years to which this reference relates, viz., 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, and 1954-55, the assessee committed default in furnishing its return, although called upon to do so by a notice issued to it under the provisions of section 22 (4) of the Act. After the Income-tax Officer completed his assessment under section 23 (4) of the Act, he issued a notice to the assessee why penalties should not be imposed on it under the provisions of sections 28 (1) (a) and 28 (1) (b) of the Act for failure to furnish the return under section 22 (2) and for failure to produce the accounts as required by the notice issued under section 22 (4) of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the Income-tax Officer imposed penalties under both th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Enayatullah Mekhri and ors. Vs. Haji Saleh Mohammed Ahmed Sait and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant102; AIR1961Mys102
N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an application under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C., read with Rule 12 of Order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules and Rule 14 of Chapter XIX of the High Court of Mysore Rules 1959, for the addition of the applicants as plaintiffs in O. S. No. 2 of 1947 on the file of the District Court, Civil Station, Bangalore, and as Respondents in Special Leave Petition No. 692 of 1959 of the Supreme Court of India. It is also mentioned that the applicants are to be added in place of S. A. Kareem Khan, one of the plaintiffs in the suit and Respondent No. 2 in the Special Leave Petition.In the affidavit in support of the application it is stated that in the appeal filed to this Court against the decree of the District Court there were three appellants (Plaintiffs), that one of them died during the pendency of the appeal and that of tha remaining two persons S. A. Kariin Khan died on 19-2-1960 with the result that only one of the plaintiffs is on record, that the applicants ar...
Tag this Judgment!Gundila Manjappa Shetty Vs. Manjakke Shedthi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant268; AIR1961Mys268; ILR1961KAR67
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from an order made against him in execution proceedings.2. In a suit brought by the decree-holder, who is the respondent in this appeal, a permanent injunction was made against the judgment-debtor restraining him from interfering with the right of the decree-holder to take water from the water course, which was the subject-matter of the suit. The decree-holder and the judgment-debtor owned neighbouring lands, the judgment-debtor being a higher riparian proprietor. The complaint made by the decree-holder was that the judgment-debtor had impeded the flow of the water in the water course and brought about a diminution in the supply of water to the decree-holder's land.3. In the executing Court, the decree-holder charged the judgment-debtor with having deepened his land after the decree, and thereby made the water flowing in the water course percolate into his land, again causing similar diminution, in the supply of water to the decree-holder's land. A...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishnaswami Rao and ors. Vs. Dundappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant17; AIR1962Mys17
(1) This is the defendants' Second Appeal Plaintiff respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction for closing the windows O and P marked in the plaint plan. He contended that there was a wall between the house of the plaintiff and the defendants and that wall marked ABCD in the plan produced along with the plaint was a common wall and, therefore, defendants should not have raised the same or put up windows or ventilators in the upstairs portion. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the disputed wall ABCD is not a common wall as alleged by the plaintiff but it is their execution wall. Therefore they were entitled to build on that wall up to any height. They are also entitled to put up the window and ventilator in their own wall. The learned District Munsiff, Bellary, who tried this case, dismissed the plaintiff's suit but the learned District Judge Bellary upheld the plaintiff's contention and granted him a decree as prayed for. He ordered that the defendants have no right to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›