Karnataka Court March 1963 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore Vs. D.C. Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR790(KAR); [1964]51ITR790(Karn)
1. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : By this, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court certain questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's consolidated order dated 5th February, 1962, in W. T. A. Nos. 327 of 1960-61, 856 of 1959-60, 1199 of 1960-61 and 509 of 1961-62. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, questions of law do arise out of the aforesaid order (in W. T. A. No. 509 of 1961-62), we hereby draw up an agreed statement of the case and refer it to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. 2. The assessee is a planter and owner of coffee estates. He is one of three brothers between whom there was a partition on the 10th of May, 1938, by which the ancestral property was divided equally amongst them after due provision had been made for the female members. His family consists of his wife and two daughters. The assessee was asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth Tax Vs. Amco Batteries (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR370(KAR); [1964]52ITR370(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. Its total wealth was computed at Rs. 15,89,013 by the Wealth-tax Officer under the Wealth-tax Act, rejecting the claim of the assessee for a deduction from the above the provision for income-tax and wealth-tax and the amount of proposed dividend on the ground that these liabilities had not become ascertained liabilities as on March 31, 1959, which was the valuation date. 2. The provision for income-tax and wealth-tax amounted to Rs. 5,15,400. 3. The provision for dividend amounted to Rs. 2,00,000. But, in this reference, we are not concerned with this provision. 4. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the liability to the tax attached as soon as the income was earned and that mere justification of the liabilities on a subsequent date did not take them out of the category of deduction allowable under the Wealth-tax Act. 5. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim holding that t...
Tag this Judgment!B.A. Sriramiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR408(KAR); [1964]52ITR408(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. The sale proceedings impugned in these petitions will have to be held invalid as the amount for the recovery of which the properties are purported to have been sold (under the sale proclamation issued) is much more than the amount due from the assessee. The certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, show that the amount due from the assessee is Rs. 24,933.16. It is now admitted on behalf of the revenue that the amount due from the assessee is only Rs. 20,997.33. According to the assessee, it was only Rs. 19,000 and odd. In any case the amount shown in the certificates in more than what was due from the assessee. It cannot be said that the mistake in question was due to any clerical error. That being so, the proclamation issued should be held to be invalid which means that the sale held in pursuance of that proclamation is also invalid. 2. A similar question came up for consideration before a Bench of the Madras High Court in Santosha Nadar v...
Tag this Judgment!Sadeppa Yellappa Dalawai Vs. Sadasiva Maharudrappa Cheelad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant145; AIR1964Mys145
1. The point of law urged in this case is an interesting one and, I am told, it is not covered by any decision of this Court. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the judgment of the first appellate Court, not being in conformity with rule 31 of 0. XLI C. P. C. is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant (Civil Appeal No. 31 of I960 in the Court of that District Judge, Belgaum) was dismissed under Rule 11 of Order XLI with the following observations: 'Find no sufficient ground to admit this appeal. Hence, rejected'. Sri. Srinivasa Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the judgment of the first appellate court is no judgment in law and therefore, I must set it aside. The respondent in this case was not represented. Therefore, at my request, Sri M.M. Jahagirdar was good enough to argue the appeal on behalf of the respondent as amicus curiae. I must admit that I had considerable assistance from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrappa Sharnappa and ors. Vs. Basalingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ159
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The defendants in O. S. No. 160/1 of 1854-55 in the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, at Uulbarga are the appellants herein. The plaintiff therein is the respondent in this appeal. The trial court dismissed, the plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit properties on the basis of his title, but the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit after upholding the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and at the same time holding that the defendants have not established their title.2. The view of the law taken toy the learned appellate Judge (Additional District Judge, Gulbarga, an C. A. Mo. 222/4 of 1959-60 on his file) cannot be sustained.3. Though the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties, yet, it dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved that he was in possession of the suit properties within 12 years from the date of the suit. It also ca...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Gujjadi Narayan Nayak and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC906(Kar)
Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. This reference relates to the levy of sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The relevant facts and the question of law giving rise to this reference will be clear from the order of reference which is given below in full : 'The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore Division, Mysore, has filed these revision petitions under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The principal question that arises for decision in these cases is, what is the meaning of the expression 'sale' by the first or the earliest of successive dealers in the State who is liable to tax under this section' found in section 5(3) of the 'Act'. 3. The material facts in these cases are as follows : The respondents in these petitions are 'dealers' in coffee seeds. They have their place of business at Mangalore. Admittedly they purchased coffee seeds with which we are concerned in these petitions from other 'dealers' in the State b...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Ratanchand Vs. Multanmull Sesnamull
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant117; AIR1964Mys117; ILR1963KAR691; (1963)2MysLJ421
1. These two appeals are directed against two Identical orders passed by the District judge, Bangalore, on two applications in two different proceedings, one in Execution Case No. 52 of 1952-53 and the other In Miscellaneous Case No. 87 of 1952-53 tiled by the Respondent praying that the appellant be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,010/- withdrawn by him from the deposit in Court on 7-2-1955, on the ground that the order on the strength of which he had withdrawn the amount had been set aside In appeal. The learned District Judge has granted the petitions and directed the appellant to redeposit the amount within 15 days.2. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the points in dispute are few and undisputed, one EA Read who was an employee in the Kolar Gold fields and was entitled to Rs. 7,588-3-0 towards his Provident Fund Contribution from the Undertaking, was indebted to the appellant Ratanchand as also to the Respondent Multanmur. Multanmull had taken a bond from Read On 1...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Nanjunda Setty and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant124; AIR1964Mys124; (1963)2MysLJ75
N. Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. These are references under Section 54 of the Mysore Stamp Act 1957 relating to the Stamp duty chargeable on two documents each of them dated 30-6-1957 purporting to be release deeds. The Mysore Stamp Act 1957 came into force on 1-6-1958. Hence it was the Mysore Stamp Act 1900 which governed the duty leviable on the documents and any question of adjudication relating thereto. The provision for the statement of any case before the High Court is Section 57 of that Act and we shall take the present references as made under that provision.As both the documents are in the same terms, one of them is reproduced below:'Release Deed.This Deed of release executed this 30th day of June 1957, by Sri --aged about--years, son of Tallam Peddanarayana Setty, residing at 27, Kumarapark West Extension, Bangalore-3 hereinafter called the Releasor of the one part, and Tallam Peddanarayana Setty, son of Tallim Nanjundaiah Setty, aged about 65, Hindu Vysya, Merchant, Manchenhalli, G...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramkrishna Bhatta and ors. Vs. B. Parameswara Somayaji
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant59; AIR1964Mys59; (1963)1MysLJ587
1. This appeal is directed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in R. E. P. No. 47 of 1960 on his file on 6-3-1961. The order impugned is a short one and we may usefully quote the same;'As security, in terms of High Court's orderhas not been furnished, sale confirmed for Rs. 360/-.Issue Cheque for purchase of N. J. Stamp forRs. 12000/-'The grievance of the appellants-judgment-debtors is that this order contravenes Rule 92 of Order 21 C. P. C. as the same was made when their application under Rule 90 of Order 21 C. P. C. was pending disposal and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.2. The proved facts of the case are as follows: In execution of the decree in O. S. No. 52/1958 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, the respondent-decree-holder brought to sale certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtors (in R. E. P. No. 47/60). The Judgment-debtors raised objections to the draft proclamation of sale. Their objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganna Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ446Kant; (1963)2MysLJ357
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner before us who was an employee of the Government in the State Accounts Department was deputed to work as Financial Assistant to the City Improvement Trust Board established under the provisions of the Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board Act. When he was so deputed to the trust board, he was an officiating Assistant Controller. After he was so deputed by a notification made by the Controller of the State Accounts Department on 15 September 1956, a further notification was issued by the Government on 4 October 1957, according sanction for the payment to the petitioner of a special pay of Rs. 50 a month during the period he was holding the post of the Financial Assistant to the City Improvement Trust Board. 2. When he was working as the Financial Assistant in that board, the petitioner retired on 25 December 1959. When his pension was determined, the authority which determined the pension refused to take into account the special pay which was sanc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »