Karnataka Court June 1962 Judgments
Hindustan Aircraft Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR471(KAR); [1963]49ITR471(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Hyderabad Bench) has referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,92,136 is liable to be taxed ?' 2. The facts of this case concisely put are as follows : The assessee is a private limited liability company carrying on business in assembling and overhauling different types of aircraft. The dispute in this case relates to its assessment in the assessment year 1950-51, the relevant accounting period being the year ended March 31, 1950. In the course of its business the assessee undertook to repair and overhaul at its Bangalore factory the aircrafts belonging to Messrs. Saudi Arabian Airlines and Messrs. Arabian American Oil Co. In respect of those contracts, the said two clients of the assessee had to pay their dues in dollars to the company's bank in America. 3. On September 19, 1949, ...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Khaleel and Sons Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks in India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys122
Sadasivayya, J.1. The facts and circumstances which have led to this appeal under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1940, briefly stated, are as follows:An application dated 2-7-1958 was made to the Registrar of Trade Marks, praying for the registration of a trade mark consisting of the expression 'Speed master', in the names of M.R. Khaleel and A.R. Khaleel (who were trading under the name and style of M/s. A.R. Khaleel and Sons), proposed to be used in respect of their watches, clocks and Alarm Time Pieces. By a letter dated 21-8-1958 issued from the office of the Registrar, the applicant was directed to show cause as to why the registration of the mark should not be refused on the ground that the expression 'Speed-master' appeared to have descriptive reference to chronological instruments specially designed to measure time in relation to speed and therefore not adapted to distinguish. After some correspondence, the applicant asked by a letter dated 3-10-1958 for a hearing before fin...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Gurusiddappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys193; ILR1962KAR527
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The appellant instituted Special Suit No. 16 of 1954 on 7-6-1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hubli (District Dharwar), for three declarations to the effect that the orders of suspension, of reduction in rank and of termination of his services passed respectively on 17-1-1950, 8-1-1951 and 27-3-1951 by the District Transportation Superintendent, Hubli, were illegal and void and that he therefore still continued in the service of the Southern Railways entitling him to the salary and the other emoluments according to rules.2. The facts relevant to the appeal are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated: The plaintiff who entered the services of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway was promoted to the post of Deputy Controller of Trains in 1945 and v/as substantively holding the same on the material date. On 15th January 1950 the plaintiff absented himself from duty. The District Transportation Superintendent, Hubli, wrote him a letter on the...
Tag this Judgment!Biligeri Rangamma Vs. Annapurnamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys168
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The properties which formed the subject matter of the suit out of which this revision petition arises belonged to one Ramaswamiah who had two wives. He had two daughters by the first wife and one daughter by the second. The first wife of Ramaswamiah pre-deceased her husband and after Ramaswamaiah died his junior wife was in possession of his properties as a limited owner since the daughters of Ramaswamaiah were still living. After his junior widow died, one of the two daughters by the senior wife brought a suit for partition of the properties of Ramaswamiah, and, defendant 1 in that suit was her own full sister and defendant 2 was her half sister. A preliminary decree for partition was made in that partition suit and after the preliminary decree was made the plaintiff died. The question then arose whether the first defendant who was the full sister of the plaintiff was the sole heir and the legal representative of the plaintiff or whether the half sister wh...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. Rajanna (M.J.)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ682Kant; (1963)1MysLJ395
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Dharwar, in Special C. No. 6 of 1960 on his file convicting the appellant under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of the payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, with a further direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded should run concurrently. 2. At the time this appeal came up for admission on 27 June, 1961 this Court found that the sentences awarded to the appellant by the learned Special Judge were less than the sentences prescribed under the statute and, therefore, a notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the sentence should not be enhanced in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalamma Vs. Somasekharappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys136; ILR1962KAR777
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned District Judge in O. S. No. 23 of 1954 by which he granted a decree for probate in favour of the respondent.2. The suit was originally instituted by one Basavalingappa on 20-8-1953 praying for the issue of a probate in his favour on the ground that one Channamma had executed a will on 20-9-1950 appointing him as an executor thereunder. Before notice of this petition could be served on the respondent Komalamma who is admittedly the daughter of the predeceased son of Chennamma, Basavalingappa himself died on 16-12-1953 and his grandson Somasekharappa filed an application for being substituted as the legal representative of the deceased. That application was granted. After service of notice in due course, Komalamma filed her statement of objection and she contended that the petitioner Somasekharappa by himself had no right to continue the proceedings as there were other legal representatives of deceased Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Gowli Buddanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR500; [1963]50ITR467(KAR); [1963]50ITR467(Karn)
1. This case raises a somewhat interesting question of law. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras Bench) has referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be referred to hereinafter as the Act, the following question of law.2. They are : '(i) Whether a sole male surviving coparcener of the Hindu joint family, his widowed mother and sisters constitute a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of the Income-tax Act (ii) Whether the assessment of the income in the hands of the Hindu undivided family was correct (iii) Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was entitled to correct the status ?' 3. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the assessee, did not press question No. 3 and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the same.4. The material facts as set out in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal are as follows :One Gowli Buddappa and his brother's son, Gowli Buddanna (subse...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaraya Vs. Siddamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys127; ILR1962KAR497
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application presented by the petitioner who claimed to be a protected tenant, for an order for possession under Section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. That application was presented against respondent 2, and the Tahsildar gave the petitioner the order which he wanted. After that order was made by the Tahsildar, respondent 1 who is the brother's wife of respondent 2 presented an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner from the order made by the Tahsildar in which she stated that the petitioner was not a protected tenant of the land and that respondent 2 was not his landlord and that the land belonged to her. She also complained that a collusive order had been obtained by the petitioner with the connivance of respondent 2. The Deputy Commissioner in that appeal made an order setting aside the order made by the Tahsildar and remanding the proceedings to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal according to law...
Tag this Judgment!S. Brahmasuriah Vs. Amba Bai Alias Sundara Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant4; AIR1964Mys4; (1963)1MysLJ238
ORDER1. The Petitioner is the defendant. He made an application for compensation under Section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that it was not maintainable. The suit was brought by the respondent on a promissory note executed by the defendant on May 15, 1960 and in the suit which was instituted by the plaintiff on August 24, 1960, the plaintiff applied for the attachment of a house belonging to the defendant. That attachment was effected. The defendant thereupon made an application for the payment to him of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation on the ground that the attachment was applied for on insufficient grounds. The defendant however deposited the entire amount due to the plaintiff including costs and current interest soon after the institution of the suit with the result that it was recorded by the Court that the suit was disposedof by settlement out of Court. But it made afurther order that the application presented by...
Tag this Judgment!Lakkajee Dolaji and Co. Vs. Mahamod Gous Karimsaheb Ainapuri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys16; ILR1962KAR451
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The question involved in this revision petition is whether the decree obtained by the petitioner was against the same judgment-debtor against whom respondent 6 obtained his decree so as to entitle him to rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Respondent 6 obtained a decree in a Bombay Court against a firm called M. K. Inapure. The petitioner also obtained a decree In the same Court of Bombay but he obtained a decree not against the firm as such but against all the partners of the firm. Both these decrees were transferred to the Court below and it is in that Court that the petitioner made an application for rateable distribution after he had got attached the same properties which respondent 6 had got attached.3. The Court below took the view that since the petitioner had obtained a decree against the partners of the firm and not against the firm the decrees had not been made against the same judgment-debtor and that therefor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »