Karnataka Court July 1962 Judgments
S. Subba Rao Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soubha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant221; AIR1964Mys221; (1963)1MysLJ80
Somnath Iyer, J.1. A retired Chief Engineer and a retired Executive Engineer whose pensions were reduced and a Sub-Engineer who was dismissed in a disciplinary proceeding commenced against them under the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, are the petitioners before us. The Chief Engineer is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1960, the Executive Engineer in Writ Petition No. 298 of 1961 and the Sub-Engineer in Writ Petition No. 1024 of 1960.2. In the charge brought against them on July 1, 1958, they were accused of dereliction of duty during the years 1948 and 1949 in the supervision of a high school building entrusted to a contractor, when the Chief Engineer was an Executive Engineer; the Executive Engineer was an Assistant Engineer and the Sub-Engineer was a Sub-Overseer. On November 14, 1958, a Board of Enquiry was appointed to enquire into those charges. That Board found the petitioners guilty of the charges which it had framed against t...
Tag this Judgment!Kokati Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Ii, Hubli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC84(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In these petitions, the validity of rule 25 of the rules framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (to referred to hereinafter as the 'Act') is assailed on various grounds. That rule reads : '(1) Every licence shall cover one place of business only and shall expire on the last day of the year in respect of which it is granted, but may be renewed of a period not exceeding one year at a time on receipt of an application from the licensee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) a licence shall, in addition to the licensee's place of business, cover such shandies as may be entered in the licence, provided that the turnover at the said shandies shall be included in the turnover at the licensee's place of business. (3) Every application for renewal shall be submitted in Form 10-A so as to reach the assessing authority not later than 30 days after the commencement of the year, for which the renewal is required. (4)(a) The fee for the grant or renewal of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankareppa Vs. Shivarudrappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys115; ILR1962KAR630; (1963)1MysLJ297
1. This appeal which raises an interesting question of law about which there is considerable conflict of judicial opinion was referred to a Bench by Kalagate, J and therefore it is before us. In this appeal the true scope of Section 107 of the Evidence Act comes up for consideration.2. The facts of the case are no more in dispute. Both the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that Parappa the propositus died a few years prior to the suit. He had four sons, viz., Irappa, Maharudrappa, Shivalingappa and Mallappa. Even during the lifetime of Irappa there was a partition in his family. Under the partition the family properties were divided only between the four sons. The two survey numbers, viz., 577/2 and 579/2 of Sattigeri village in Belgaum District had been given to Parappa for his maintenance. In other words these two survey numbers remain undivided. The evidence discloses that Irappa was slightly demented; that he left the family house long time back and that he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasa Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwar-iii, Dharwar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR609; [1962]13STC940(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. These are connected petitions. They are filed by the same assessee. W.P. 555/62 relates to the sales tax levied for the assessment year 1956-57, W.P. 556/62 relates to the sales tax levied for the period commencing from 1st April, 1957, and ending with 30th September, 1957. W.P. 574/62 relates to the sales tax levied for the assessment year 1955-56. 2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the assesses-petitioner has prayed that we may be pleased to quash the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwar. As against the orders passed by the said Commercial Tax Officer, he has not gone up in appeal to the authorities constituted under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Till 1st October, 1957, the Bombay area of the Mysore State was governed, in the matter of sales tax, by the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. A uniform sales tax law in the new Mysore State was introduced for the first time on 1st October, 1957. The impugned assessments wer...
Tag this Judgment!Marulasiddanna Gowda Vs. Mahadevanaik and C. Veerappa, Liquidators, My ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys61
Mir Iqbal Hussain, J. 1. This appeal raises many interesting questions. Defendant who is the appellant before this Court was a share-holder of the Mysore Malleable Iron and Steel Foundry, Ltd., Harihar. He had purchased 100 ordinary shares of the company of the value of Rs. 50/- each. He paid a sum of Rs. 3500/- towards the share amount. There was still an outstanding balance of Rs. 1500/- in respect of the amount due for the purchase of those shares. On 30-11-1949, the company made a demand for the balance due by the defendant-appellant. But no amount was paid by the defendant. By an extra-ordinary resolution passed by the share-holders of the said company it went into voluntary liquidation on 12-1-1953. The plaintiffs were appointed as liquidators. Plaintiffs are the respondents before this Court. On their assumption of the office of liquidators, they issued a notice dated 19-7-1954 marked as Exhibit P-2 in the case calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- together with ...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Aswathiah and Brothers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Vii Circle, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC467(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the penalty levied on him under section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. The petitioner is a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. For our present purpose we are concerned with the assessments due for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60. Though the assessee duly submitted his returns in time, the assessment orders in respect of the above two years were made only on 8th October, 1960. The demand notices were served on the assessee on 7th November, 1960, requiring him to pay the balance tax due from him within 21 days from the date of the service of the demand notices, which means he was required to pay the balance amount due from him on or before the 28th November, 1960. The amount demanded was paid on 13th December, 1960. Thereafter, on 17th December, 1960, the respondent purporting to act under section 13, called upon the assessee to pay the penalty said to have accrued as a result of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Shamarao Kulkarni Vs. Pralhad Krishnaji Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant31; AIR1964Mys31
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The question involved in this case is whether a partition made bwy a Collector under Section 54 of the code of Civil Procedure of lands assessed to land revenue-situate in that part of the new State of Mysore in which the Bombay Land Revenue Code is operating, amounts to an appealable decision or order falling within Section 203 of that Code.2. This is how the question arises.3. In a partition suit brought in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, in the year 1946, a preliminary decree was made under which the respondents were declared to be entitled to a three-fourths share in the family property. By an order made under Rule 18 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, me Collector was directed by the Court to make a partition of those family lands which were assessed to the payment of land revenue to the Government. After that partition was made, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the Collector under the supposition that such an appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Shivasankarappa K. Vs. His Workmen and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1962
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ448Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The management of the industry called 'Jayalakshmi Textiles' is the Petitioner before us, and the complaint made on its behalf is against one portion of the award made by the labour court, Bangalore, in a reference made to it under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, at the instance of the workmen of the industry. Many demands were made by those workmen and an award pursuant to the reference made under S. 10, was made granting most of them. But the only part of the award which is challenged in this writ petition is the dearness allowance allowed by the labour court at a flat rate of Rs. 6.50 for each workman a month. Although the labour court in Para. 17 of its award did address itself to the question whether the financial stability and economic condition of the industry justified the award of any dearness allowance to the workmen, it did not proceed to rest its decision on any finding that there was such basis for the fixation or the award of any dearness allowan...
Tag this Judgment!P.K.P. Abdul Harkeen Sahib Vs. Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC578(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. The point raised in this petition is covered by the decision of a Bench of this Court (of which I was a Member) in C.R.Ps. Nos. 964 and 1393 of 1961 (Since reported as Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 S.T.C. 583). The learned Government Pleader tried to persuade us that the decision of this Court in that case requires reconsideration. After having heard him carefully, we have come to the conclusion that the above decision is correct. 2. The disputed transactions in the present case are admittedly sale transactions. The sales in question were effected in the course of inter-State transactions and therefore the same is governed by the provisions of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus far, there is no dispute. It is also admitted that section 8(1) of the Act is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Both the parties are agreed that the transactions in question, ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shivashankarappa Vs. Workmen of Jayalakshmi Textiles and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant295; AIR1964Mys295
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The management of the industry called 'Jayalakshmi Textiles' is the petitioner before us, and the complaint made on its behalf is against one portion of award made by the. Labour Court, Bangalore, in a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, at the instance of the workmen of the industry. Many demands were made by those workmen and an award pursuant to the reference made under Section 10, was made granting most of them. But the only part of the award which is challenged in this writ petition is the dearness allowance allowed by the Labour Court at a flat rate of Rs. 6-50 nP. for each work-man a month. Although the Labour Court in Paragraph 17 of its award did address itself to the question whether the financial stability and economic condition of the industry justified the award of any dearness allowance to the workmen, it did not proceed, to rest its decision on any finding that there was such basis for the fixation or the award of any ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »