Karnataka Court March 1962 Judgments

Jivubai Vs. Ningappa Adrishappa Yadwad

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1963Mys3

N. Sreenivasa Rau, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the decree granting judicial separation to the Respondent (husband) from the Appellant (wife) made by the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Bijapur and confirmed on appeal by the District Judge Bijapur.2. It is not disputed that the parties were married in 1948 and lived amicably till about March 1950 when the Appellant went to her father's house and that she did not join her husband till the date of the petition for judicial separation in October 1956. The parties were at variance In regard to the reasons for their being so separated. While it was the husband's case that in spite of repeated efforts to get Ms wife back she stayed away, the latter averred that, even though she was willing to rejoin her husband and made efforts in that direction, he would not take her back. The two courts below, after having gone through the oral and documentary evidence in the case, have concurrently ...

Ekambarappa Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Bellary

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1963]49ITR692(KAR); [1963]49ITR692(Karn)

Hegde, J.1. These petitions raise one common question of law and that is that the impugned notices were issued long after the period fixed under section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be referred to as the Act hereinafter), and, therefore, they are invalid. The petitioners are the partners of a firm known as 'Guduthur Thimmappa & Brothers'. On September 8, 1960, they were served with notices under section 35(5). The petitioners challenge the validity of those notices. 2. The facts material for our present purpose are as follows : The petitioners in these three petitions were partners of a firm known as Guduthur Thimmappa & Brothers; that firm was dissolved on October 16, 1944. For the assessment year 1945-46, the firm in question was assessed to income-tax on January 31, 1948. After the firm was assessed, the partners were also assessed to income-tax in respect of their share of the income. Later on, it was found out that a portion of the firm's income had 'escaped assess...

D.H. Nazareth Vs. the 11 Enacted Gift-tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant269; AIR1962Mys269; [1962]45ITR194(KAR); [1962]45ITR194(Karn)

K.S. Hegde, J.(1) In these writ Petitions , the validity of the Gift-tax Act (Central Act No. 18 of that 1958) to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter, in so far as it purports to reach gifts of 'land a and buildings' is challenged. The gifts with which are concerned in these petitions are gifts of agricultural lands.(2) In Writ Petition No. 1077/59, though the gift deed in question (dated 21-1-1958) includes properties other than agricultural lands, the tax levied in respect of non-agricultural lands is not challenged. The total tax levied on the petitioner by the Second Gift-tax Officer. Mangalore, as per his proceedings No. 83-/58-59 dated 25-11-1959 in Rs. 35,612/- Out of this sum a sum of Rs. 34,036/18 was levied as gift-tax in respect of a gift of a coffee plantation. It is this levy which is the subject-matter of challenge in that petition.(3) In Writ Petition No. 19/1960 the settlement deed dated 14-3-1957 the one with which we are concerned includes only agricultural lands:...

D.H. Hazareth Vs. Gift-tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

Hegde, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the validity of the Gift-tax Act (Central Act No. 18 of 1958) to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter, in so far as it purports to reach gifts of 'lands and buildings' is challenged. The gifts with which we are concerned in these petitions are gifts of agricultural lands. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1077/59, though the gift deed in question (date January 21, 1958) includes properties other than agricultural lands, the tax levied in respect of non-agricultural lands is not challenged. The total tax levied on the petitioner by the Second Gift-tax Officer, Mangalore, as per his proceedings No. 83/58-59 dated November 25, 1959, is Rs. 35,612. Out of this sum, a sum of Rs. 34,036.18 was levied as gift-tax in respect of a gift of a coffee plantation. It is this levy which the subject-matter of challenge in that petition. 3. In Writ Petition No. 19/1960, the settlement deed dated May 14, 1957, the one with which we are concerned, includes only agricultural...

Ganapati Ishwarappa Bagewadi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1964]52ITR850(KAR); [1964]52ITR850(Karn)

1. This case has come to us by means of a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act'). The question referred for our opinion i : 'Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated as being based on suspicion and partly on irrelevant materials which were not relied on by the department before the said Appellate Tribunal and without drawing the attention of the petitioners thereto.' 2. The order of the Tribunal whose correctness is assailed before us is found in I.T.A. No. 4017 of 1954-55 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A'. It is a common order in respect of the assessment for the years 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. The order assessing the assessee to income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 was made on March 29, 1952. The orders relating to the income-tax for the other assessment year were made on March 25, 1953. 3. The returns made by the assessee for the releva...

Sri Ramakrishna theatre Vs. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant266; AIR1962Mys266; ILR1962KAR396

Hombe Gowda, J.(1) This reference under 54(1) of the Mysore Stamp Act ( which corresponds to S. 57 follow the Indian Stamp Act) has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Commissioner of Stamps in Mysore) referring certain questions raised therein for the decision of this Court under Sec 54(2) of the Act in the following circumstances: The manager Director of Sri Ramakrishna Theater, Udipi, South Kanara executed a document in favour of Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate for a consideration of Rs. 20.000/-. The said document was drawn up on a stamp paper of Rs. 1-50. When the said document was presented before the Assistant Register of Joint Stock Companies, he impounded the same and held that the document was a mortgage deed chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 300/- under Art, 33 (b) of Schedule 1-A, of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the madras Stamp Act of 1922. On being called upon by the Assistant Registrar recorded a certificate on the document under S. 42 o...

Rachagouda Gurusiddappa Patil Vs. Kamabai and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1963Mys21

Hombe Gowda, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the learned, exhaustive and instructive judgments of my learned Brothers Hegde, J. and Kalagate, J., proposing the answer to the question referred to the Full Bench for opinion. While Hegde, J., has reached the conclusion that our answer to the question should be in the negative, Kalagate, J., is of the opinion that it should be in the affirmative. After carefully examining the reasoning on which the answer is based, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by Hegde J., that the answer to the question referred to us should be in the negative. I wish only to add a few words and my remarks should, therefore, be very brief.2. I do not propose to review the decided cases of the Bombay High Court on the subject since all those decisions and the principle deducible therefrom have all been elaborately dealt with by my learned Brothers in the course of their orders. The principle of law that if a statute purports to exclude the ord...

Gururajachar Vs. State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1963)IILLJ606Kant; (1963)1MysLJ262

ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J. 1. In respect of six charges which were framed against the petitioner who was an inspector of schools in the Department of Education, disciplinary proceedings were commenced and those proceedings ended in the imposition of three penalties by the Director of Public Instruction who was the authority empowered to impose penalties. These punishments were imposed on 14 February, 1959. 2. On 6 January, 1960, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner from the office of the Mysore Government Secretariat calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishments imposed on him by the Director of Public Instruction should not be enhanced under rule 26 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. This notice purports to have been issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Education. The petitioner contends that the Government of Mysore has no power under...

Chikmallappa Vs. Nagaraj and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1963CriLJ694

ORDER1. This is a reference made by the learned sessions Judge, Shimoga Division, under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code requesting this Court to quash the order of commitment made in C.C. No. 2212 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Tarikere and registered as Chikmagalur Sessions case No. 5 of 1960. The learned Sessions Judge opined that the prosecution in that case is hit by Sections 132 and 197 of Criminal Procedure Code.2. C.C. No. 2212 of 1959 referred to above was a private complaint laid by one Chikmallappa belonging to Sanchalli of Kadur Taluk. His case is that on 7-9-59 when his servant Thimiah was working in his coconut garden the accused who was then the Sub-Inspector of Police at Yagati, Kadur Taluk, came there with a Constable and asked Thimmiah about the whereabouts or one Lakshma Lambani; when Thimmiah pleaded ignorance about the same the accused grew wild and severely assaulted Thimmiah; seeing this incident, Thimmiah's daughter went running to the complai...

G.T. Rajamannar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1964]51ITR339(KAR); [1964]51ITR339(Karn)

1. The question of law referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first proviso to section 41 (1) of the Act was rightly applied ?' 2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : 3. One C. R. Thiruvengadam Chetty executed a deed of trust on September 30, 1954, whereby he conveyed his self-acquired properties to be administered by three trustees, the first trustee being his son, G. T. Rajamannar alias Raju. According to that deed, the present trustees were to utilise the income of the trust properties towards the maintenance of the first referred son and his grandchildren. The marriage expenses of his grandchildren, whether male or female, have to be met from the income of the properties included in the trust deed. After the said Thiruvengadam Chetty's death, his male grandchildren were to become the absolute owners sharing equally the properties mentioned in the schedule to the deed in question, subject to the maintenance a...