Karnataka Court August 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhavani Amma and ors. Vs. Narayana Acharya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Kant120
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of arrears of maintenance due to the second plaintiff under a maintenance karar dated 15-6-1900 marked Exhibit A-1 in the suit. The question presented for decision is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to value the claim for the rice morass at the prevalent market rates or at the fixed rate of Rs. 4/- notwithstanding the undisputed fact that the market rates ranged between Rs. 10/- Rs. 23/-per mura of rice during the relevant period. The Courts below held that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim at the market rates on the ground that the decision in a previous suit marked Exhibit A-12 operated as Res Judicata on the issue now raised for decision. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the contesting defendant, contended that both on a construction of the terms of Exhibit A-1 and also by reason of the judgment in Original Suit No. 35/1919 on the file of the District...
Naranappa Vs. Puttamma, W/O Naranappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys174; 1963CriLJ787; ILR1962KAR680
ORDERT.K. Tukol, J. 1. The sole point for my consideration in this petition is whether the order passed under Section 488(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the City Magistrate, Bangalore fixing up the monthly allowance for the maintenance of the respondent merely (sic) affidavits filed by the parties is legal and valid.2. The respondent filed an application before the City Magistrate under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the present applicant stating that she was his legally-wedded wife, that during her illness he had married a second wife and that he had refused to maintain her. She prayed for a monthly allowance of Rs. 50/-. In his written statement the present petitioner while admitting many of the averments, contended that he never refused to maintain his wife and that being a carpenter his income was very meagre.3. At the hearing, the parties filed their respective affidavits on 6-2-1962. The Magistrate heard arguments on 6-3-1962 and passed the impugned o...
Jejamma Vs. Sivanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ247
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution. The Courts below dismissed Vie suit on the ground that the plaintiff lies failed to prove that the complaint filed by the defendant 4n C. C. No. 700/1954 on the file of the Second City Magistrate, Mvsome, was without reasonable and probable cause.2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are: The plaintiff and defendant were neighbours residing In Thaloor Mutt Street, Mysore City, me relations between tliem were not cordial The plaintiff, a lady aged about 60 years lives with her daughter aged about 30 years. The defendant is a milk vendor. On 14-12-1963, the defendant preferred a criminal complaint against the plaintiff, and her daughter, charringg them with offences Under Sections 355 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The defendant alleged in the complaint that at about 10 P.M. on 13-12-1953 stones fell on his house, that on opening; his door, he saw both the plain...
J.N.A. Hobbs Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Coorg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR919; [1963]49ITR811(KAR); [1963]49ITR811(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. This is a reference under section 55(2) of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.) 2. The questions referred for the opinion of this court are as follows : '(1) Whether section 24 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, is applicable to the facts of the case and the residuary income derived by the executors and trustees is to be charged to agricultural income-tax at the hands of an association of persons representing the deceased (2) Whether the beneficiaries cannot be assessed separately and the income received by the executors and trustees is one indivisible (3) Whether the residuary income from the estates was divisible into six or in the alternative two equal shares each of which was receivable by six beneficiaries or the two sets of beneficiaries referred to in the will separately (4) Whether section 10 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 is the section applicable to the case to t...
Krishna Rao L. Balekai Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer, City Circle I, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR926; [1963]48ITR472(KAR); [1963]48ITR472(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. The petitioner, who is assessed to wealth-tax during the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, has these petitions challenging the validity of the assessments made on him. Two contentions were urged in support of these petitions. They are : (i) Parliament had no competence to enact any law imposing tax on the capital value of the land; and (ii) on a proper appreciation of the material on record, the 'land' that is in dispute in these petitions is an 'agricultural land' 2. Sri E. S. Venkataramiah, the learned counsel for the Assesses, contended that Parliament could not have enacted any law levying tax on the capital value of 'land', be it agricultural or otherwise. According to him, 'land' is included in the entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, Parliament could not have enacted any law imposing tax on the capital value of 'land'. We do not think that there is any force in this contention. The Wealth-tax Act was enacted evidently o...
industrial and General Engineering Company Vs. their Workmen and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ438Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner before us who is the proprietor of an undertaking called the Industrial and General Engineering Company in Bangalore, was a manufacturer of articles known as bobbins and thimbles. He used to receive orders for these articles from various sources including the State. In this undertaking, there were two sections : one known as the bobbins section, and the other known as the workshop. 2. Sometime about June 1958 the petitioner decided to close down the bobbins section having discovered that the continuance of that section would be uneconomical and on 2 June 1958 he announced by a notice that that section was closed down with effect from that date. 3. About a dozen workmen who were working in the workshop section commenced, according to the petitioner, a strike on 4 June 1958 for the purpose of procuring the reinstatement of the employees who had been discharged from the bobbins section. On that date, after the workers of the workshop commenced that strik...
C. Govindaswamy Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC65(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J.1. In this revision petition under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the petitioner challengers the correctness of the remand order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Case No. S.T.A. 208 of 1960-61, on two grounds, viz., (i) that on the facts found by the Tribunal there was no case for remand; and (ii) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to remand the case. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer computed the total net turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 24,931-28. Gross turnover was computed at Rs. 85,088-02. Out of that he deducted Rs. 60,156-74 as turnover covered by exemptions. In arriving at the gross turnover of Rs. 85,088-02, he took into consideration the value of liquor that was in the shop on 1st October, 1957, and under that held he included a sum of Rs. 19,431-28. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. But the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the value of liquor...
Ethel Rodrigues Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Estate Duty-c ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR671; [1963]49ITR128(KAR); [1963]49ITR128(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Mangalore, in No. R1/55-56 dated 19th March, 1962, purporting to rectify the original order of assessment made by him on March 27, 1957. It is contended that the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner is the widow of one Mr. H. P. P. Rodrigues who died on August 4, 1955, leaving behind his a vast estate. In respect of the estate left by the deceased, the petitioner, who was the execute of the will left by Mr. Rodrigues, submitted a return. After scrutinising the return made and after examining the materials collected by the officers of the department appointed under section 41 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (to be referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter), the Deputy Col...
Rickabchand Chimnaji Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, City Circle, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR141(KAR); [1964]52ITR141(Karn)
1. On the admitted facts, the impugned order is clearly illegal. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 applied to the first respondent to register the firm known as 'Messrs. Porwal Silk House' claiming that they were the partners of that firm. Their application under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was rejected on the ground that the alleged firm had no real existence. After holding that the firm did not exist, the first respondent proceeded to assess the petitioner on the basis of a return submitted by the fourth respondent purporting to act on behalf of the alleged firm. Admittedly, the petitioner had not submitted any return nor was the petitioner asked to submit any return. The return submitted by one partner of a firm could be considered as a return submitted by the other partners if the firm really exists. But, as mentioned earlier, the first respondent has come to a positive conclusion that the firm in question has no real existence. Therefore, the act of t...
K.V. Adinarayana Setty Vs. Income-tax Officer, Tumkur Circle and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR987(KAR); [1964]52ITR987(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner, has advanced three contentions. They ar : (1) As there is conflict between section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter) and section 23(5)(a) of the Act, the former being the charging section, should prevail over the latter, which according to him, is a machinery section; (2) section 23(5)(a) is ultra vires as the same was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament when it was enacted in 1956; and (3) section 14(2)(aa) is void as it offends article 14 of the Constitution. 2. To appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to mention the material facts. The assessment which is impugned in the present proceedings relate to the assessment year 1960-61, the previous year ending on March 31, 1960. The petitioner was a partner of a registered firm. The income of the registered firm was assessed to tax ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »