Karnataka Court December 1961 Judgments
Mahadevi Vs. Saraswati and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mys149; ILR1961KAR1217
Sreenivasa Rau, Offg. C.J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit brought by respondent I against the Appellant and respondent-2 for a declaration that the suit property which is a land with a house standing thereon was the property of defendant 2 (Respondent-2) as it had devolved on him by inheritance from his mother, that the statement alleged to have been given by defendant-2's mother for the transfers of the property to the name of defendant-1 (Appellant) without consideration was fraudulent and that the property was liable for attachment and sale in execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 182 of 1947 obtained by the plaintiff against defendant-2. The plaint was later amended by adding a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining defendant-1 from obstructing the plaintiff from executing the abovementioned decree. Defendant-1 resisted the suit contending that defendant 2, had never had any interest in the property, that the transfer made to her name by her mother-in-law was va...
Tag this Judgment!Hormusji Hirjibhoy and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Ii, Hubl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC773(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner before us who is a dealer in cotton seeds and groundnuts in Hubli, questions the correctness and validity of the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle 2, Hubli, in respect of his turnover for the year commencing on 1st April, 1958, and ending on 31st March, 1959, under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Commercial Tax Officer determined the taxable turnover of the petitioner to be Rs. 6,27,902-49 nP. and called upon the petitioner to pay a tax of Rs. 12,558-04 nP. 2. The turnover which was determined in that way related to the transactions of the petitioner in cotton seeds and groundnuts. The correctness of the determination of the turnover by the Commercial Tax Officer is not questioned by the petitioner. But what is contended on his behalf by his learned Advocate, Mr. Ullal, is that to the extent of Rs. 1,60,706-38 nP., which represented the sum of money for which the petitioner sold certain quantity of ground...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sreerangiah Setty and Sons Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar Circle ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC314(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner in these cases assails the validity of the proviso appearing under section 3(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. The material facts are these : The petitioner purchases groundnuts, sells a part of them, and expels oil out of the remainder. He was assessed to sales tax during the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 in respect of his turnover not only relating to the sales of groundnut seeds but also the sales of groundnut oil made out of the groundnut seeds purchased by him. 3. Under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, at one stage till 14th December, 1948, all purchases of groundnut seeds were taxable and all sales of groundnut oil were also taxable. But from the turnover relating to the sales of groundnut oil, the price for which the groundnut seeds had been purchased by the dealer had to be deducted with the result that there was in effect no double taxation. With effect from 14th December, 1948, all purchases of groundnut s...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Ningappa Sanakal of Munavalli and ors. Vs. the Mysore State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC796(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. Three partners, Gomadi, Sanakal and Honnalli, who were members of a partnership firm, were carrying on business under the name and style of 'Rudrappa Sambappa Gomadi.' The first petitioner before us is one of those partners. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased partner Honnalli. The third partner Gomadi is not a party to this writ petition. It appears some time during the year 1951 or during the year 952 this partnership was dissolved. The question as to from what date the partnership must be deemed to have been dissolved is involved in a second appeal which is pending in this Court. But in the view that we take in this case, the date of dissolution becomes really immaterial. 2. In respect of the assessment year 1950-51 under the provisions of section 11 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the turnover of this firm was assessed to sales tax. The assessment was made on 20th November, 1954. It is thus obvious whether the dissolution of the firm took place in...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1961
Reported in: ILR1962KAR270; [1963]47ITR529(KAR); [1963]47ITR529(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The question presented by this case, stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, is the assessability to income-tax of profits arising from fluctuations in the exchange rates of foreign currency. 2. The assessee, which will be referred to as the bank, is a bank called the Canara Bank Limited, with its head-office in India and its branches in various places including one opened in Karachi before it became, in the year 1947, part of the Dominion of Pakistan, on the partition of India. Even after such partition, the currencies of the two Dominions on India and Pakistan were at par until there was a deflation of the Indian rupees on September 18, 1949. Pakistan not having devalued her rupee, there was the inevitable disturbances of the parity between the currencies of the two countries and, for various reasons, the exchange ratio between the two currencies was not determined until February 27, 1951, on which date it was agreed that a hundred Pakistan rupees were eq...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnawa Vs. Gurushiddappa Gurushantappa Magavi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant135; AIR1962Mys135; ILR1962KAR257
Hegde, J. (1) This appeal arises out of proceeding under S. 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter. The parties to this appeal are relations. The appellant as the plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 1954 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, praying that the award made and signed by defendants 1 and 2 on 7-1-1950 or a signed copy of the same be caused to be filed in Court and judgment according to that award be pronounced. Some of the parties to the award raised various objections to the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff. On the pleadings, the Court below raised three preliminary issues. They are :'1. Is this suit in time ? 2. Is the award before the Court void as contended and 3. Is the suit barred under S. 32 of the 'Act' 'It answered the first and their third issues in favour of the plaintiff. But, under issue No.2, it held that the award is vitiated as the Arbitrators have contravened clause (2) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Fakirappa Sanna Nagashetti and ors. Vs. Shivappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant140; AIR1962Mys140
Sadasivayya, J.(1) This Regular Appeal is against the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 41/54 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Dharwar.(2) Plaintiff Shivappa brought the suit before the lower Court, for partition and possession of the suit properties which consisted of some lands, three houses and certain movables. The Plaintiff's case was that Fakirava, defendant No. 2 had taken him in adoption on 14-8-1952 to her (defendant 2's) husband Channappa who appears that have died some thirty years prior to the institutions of the suit. One Fakirappa (who is stated to have died shortly after the death of Channappa) was the father of the said Channappa. Defendant No. 1 was another son of the said Fakirappa by his Udki wife Fakirava, while Channappa was Fakirapp's son by his regularly married wife Iravva. Defendant No. 3 had been impleaded on the ground that though he had no right to any of the suit properties, he had been in possession of the lands claiming to be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›