Karnataka Court September 1961 Judgments
K.S. Subbarayappa and Sons Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1961
Reported in: ILR1962KAR705; [1962]13STC873(Kar)
ORDER1. The only question of law that arises for decision in this civil revision petition is whether the respondent's right to assess the petitioner for the assessment year 1952-53 is barred by rule 34(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1948, which shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'. If our answer is in the affirmative, then the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 2. The material facts are not disputed. They are as follows : The original assessment order dated 26th October, 1953, was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, in appeal. He remanded the case to the Assessing Authority as per his order dated 12th November, 1954, for fresh enquiry and disposal. Subsequent to that order, the petitioner filed a return of turnover declaring his gross turnover for the year at Rs. 2,57,931-10-1 and a net turnover at Rs. 1,53,496-3-11. This return appears to have been received by the Assessing Authority on 24th February, 1956. But th...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhacharya Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant280; AIR1962Mys280
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The petitioner in this case was a Senior Professor of Tharka in the Government Sanskrit College at Bangalore. On April 15, 1957, the Principal of that College issued a memo intimating him that he had been relieved of his duties as Professor with effect from April 14, 1957. On April 14, 1957 the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years. (2) The petitioner contended that in accordance with the service condition which had been incorporated by the then Rajpramukh of Mysore in the Mysore Services Regulations by a Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on April 29, 1955, he could be retired only after he attained the age of 58 years and not earlier. (3) When the petitioner applied to the Principal of his College for a copy of the Order of the Director of Public Instruction who had directed his retirement, hew not granted that copy, but was informed by his Principal that his post had been ordered to be kept vacant. (4) The petitioner thereupon ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kare More Sharabanna Rudrappa and ors. Vs. Basamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant207; AIR1962Mys207; ILR1962KAR150
(1) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of law urged in this appeal are the following: The first plaintiff is the wife of the third defendant. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of the third defendant and the first plaintiff. In the suit, the plaintiffs have claimed maintenance from the third defendant and they have sought a charge on the suit properties for the maintenance that may be decreed in their favour. The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance from the third defendant. That finding is not challenged in this Court. The first appellate Court granted the first plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per year and for plaintiffs 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 200/- each, per year. (2) Sri K. R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, the learned counsel for the appellants contend that the rate at which the maintenance was granted to the plaintiffs is excessive. We do not think that this contention is correct. As found by the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC106(Kar)
ORDERHombe Gowda, J.1. These four revision petitions are directed against a common order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Cases Nos. S.T.A. 116, S.T.A. 117, S.T.A. 118 and S.T.A. 119 of 1958 and relate to the levy of sales tax for four quarters of the year 1955-56 by the Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Bangalore, in respect of certain sales effected by the respondent-mills - the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited, Bangalore. 2. The respondent-mills are manufacturers of cotton, woollen and silk goods in Bangalore and they are registered dealers in those goods. They manufactured and sold silk goods from their mills. There was some dispute as to whether the silk goods manufactured by the respondent-mills were textiles woven on 'power-looms' or manufactured in a 'mill' for the purposes of levy of sales tax. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore, instructed the respondent-mills to collect sales tax on the silk goods sold by them...
Tag this Judgment!Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle and anr. [No. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1961
Reported in: [1963]49ITR977(KAR); [1963]49ITR977(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. For the assessment year 1952-53, the Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, made an assessment on March 26, 1957, in respect of the income of a Hindu undivided family consisting of the petitioner in W.P. No. 322 of 1959 and his son who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 323 of 1959. The tax payable by the family was determined as Rs. 54,067-5-0. 2. But, in the meanwhile, according to the petitioners, on March 28, 1956, there was a partition of a part of the family assets, viz., the movables. On the basis of that incomplete partition, an application had been made by the petitioners for a record of that partition under section 25A(1) of the Income-tax Act. Not unnaturally, on the ground that the partition was an incomplete partition, the Income-tax Officer declined to make that record and proceeded to make the assessment for the year 1952-53 as if the family was still undivided. 3. After the assessment was made in that way, on March 29, 1957, according to the petitioners, there ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Desi Textile Mills Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant174; AIR1962Mys174; ILR1962KAR137
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This application concerns a reference made by the State Government on January 22, 1959, under the provisionary of Sections 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referring to the Labour Court the following dispute:'Is the Management of ?Desi Textile Mills Bangalore plaintiff in dismissing all the workmen of the Factory as a sequel to the stay-on-strike on 22-10-1955? If not, whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?'The Desi Textile Mills referred to in this reference is the petitioner before us. It was the owner of a silk industry employing 150 workmen. Its case is that in the year 1955, as a result of certain losses sustained by it, It stopped the payment of certain bonuses in respect of which there was a demand made by the workers who, on October 22, 1955, commenced a stay-in-strike by reason of the demand having been repudiated. That strike came to an end. But on October 22, 1955, the peer terminated the services of 132 of those 150...
Tag this Judgment!Godag Belgiri, Municipal Borough, Godag Vs. the Electrical Inspector, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant209; AIR1962Mys209
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) In this application for certiorari, the petitioner which is a Municipal, Borouth estabilished under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act asks us to quash the decision gives by the Electrical Inspector to the Government of Mysore on April 1, 1959 in a dispute referred to him by the petitioner under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.(2) Respondent 2 in this application is a licensee supplying electrical energy to the consumers within the limits of the petitioner Municipal Borough under Part II of that Act. The petitioner is one of the consumers to which respondent 2 has been supplying energy, principally for the limitation of streets. There were disputes between the petitioner and respondent 2 in the year 1958 in regard to the rates chargeable and in regard to the manner of collection of the amounts due by the Petitioner. On December 23, 1958 the petitioner asked the Electrical Inspector who is responding 1 before us to decide a dispute which had accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Sidrammappa Vs. Sidramappa Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant212; AIR1962Mys212; ILR1962KAR129
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) This Civil Revision Petition was referred to a Bench by the Officiating chief Justice as per his order dated 14.4.1961. In this proceeding we have to determine the true scope of section 7(4)(f) of the Court fees Act (as amended in Bombay by Act XII of 1954) which provision reads thus :'7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: * * * * * * (f) for accounts-- according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal subject to the provisions of section 8A with a minimum fee of rupees ten in the case of suits falling under Clauses (c) to (f)'. Section 8A of the Court Fees Act does not apply to the facts of this case. (2) In order to determine the question of law that arises for consideration, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts of the case: The petitioner in this case was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He issued the defendant for accounts. He value...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Bhairao Rao Maloji Rao Ghorpade Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR568(KAR); [1962]46ITR568(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This application is for prohibition restraining the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of Bagalkot from proceeding with the assessment which he proposed to make in respect of the agricultural income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58. 2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Mudhol in the district of Bijapur, was called upon by the Income-tax Officer by a notice issued to him on June 10, 1958, to file his return in respect of his agricultural income for the assessment year 1957-58. Although the petitioner did furnish the return he was called upon to furnish he asserts in this application that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess his agricultural income for the year 1957-58. 3. The challenge made to the competence of the Income-tax Officer is based on the ground that since during a part of the previous year to which that assessment year related, the lands from which the petitioner derived his agricultural income were not within the new State...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Chandra Sekhara and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mys292
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. For the purpose of making appointments to the posts of Munsiffs in the judicial Service of the State of Mysore, the State Public Service Commission, which will be referred to as the Commission, conducted a competitive examination which commenced on December 20, 1960, and continued till March 10, 1951. There were 229 candidates but it was announced by the Commission by a notification which it made on May 22, 1961, that only fifty two had succeeded. Their names were published in the order of merit. The petitioners who took the examination but did not succeed challenge the notification as one made without lawful authority.2. The examination was conducted under Rules made for that purpose by the Governor of the State under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Those rules which were intituled the Mysore Munsiffs Recruitment Rules, 1958, will be referred to as the Rules. Rule 3 of those Rules directed the appointments to the cadre of Munsiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›