Karnataka Court August 1963 Judgments
K.Y. Pilliah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1963
Reported in: ILR1964KAR103; [1964]53ITR705(KAR); [1964]53ITR705(Karn)
K.H. Hegde, J.1. These are reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in I.T.A. Nos. 289 and 290 of 1961-62 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. 2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : By this application, the assessee 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 24th April, 1962, in I.T.A. No. 289 of 1961-62 and I.T.A. No. 290 of 1961-62. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does not arise out of the aforesaid order, we hereby draw up an agreed statement of the case and refer it to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 3. The assessee was a partner in the firm of K. Y. Pilliah & Son. In the assessment year 1956-57, the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 31,314. The assessment was comp...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Mallikarjunappa Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chickmagalur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR778(KAR); [1964]52ITR778(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated March 25, 1961, passed on him for the assessment year 1957-58 in file No. CMA. 2. M. 14/57-58 by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chickmagalur. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has set out various grounds in support of the prayer made by him. It is unnecessary to consider the several grounds pleaded and urged on behalf of the petitioner, as in our judgment this petition has to succeed on the simple ground that the petitioner was assessed to tax under a wrong statute. 3. In the instant case agricultural income-tax was levied on the petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58, the accounting year ending on March 31, 1957. The income in question arose within the old Mysore State. In 1955 the legislature of the old Mysore State enacted the Mysore Agricul...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Saib Gunda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ460
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda Officiating C.J.1. The legality and correctness of the order passed in C. C, No. 113/2/1962 by the First Class Magistrate, passed on 8-3-1963 applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and releasing the respondents who were found guilty of an offence Under Section 326 IPC on probation of good conduct for keeping peace after executing a bond is challenged in this revision petition.2. A charge sheet was placed by the police of Janwada against the respondents before the First Class Magistrate, Bidar for an offence punishable Under Section 326 IPC On perusing the documents filed Under Section 173 Cr, P. C. the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the respondents for an offence punishable Under Section 326 IPC on 6-10-62. When the said charge was read over and explained to the respondents and they were called upon to plead, they pleaded 'not guilty'. The prosecution then proceeded to lead evidence to establish the charge against th...
Tag this Judgment!Akhter Begum Vs. Hasna Begum and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant216; AIR1964Mys216; (1964)1MysLJ128
1. The appellant is defendant 4 and respondent 1 when this appeal was preferred was the plaintiff, the other respondents being the other defendants. The plaintiff is now dead and her legal representatives have been brought on record.2. The suit was brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a sixth share in the suit proper-ties and that declaration when the suit was brought was considered by the plaintiff to be sufficient since the properties were then in the custody of the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee property functioning under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The plaintiff's case was that the properties which formed the subject-matter of the suit belonged to a certain Abdul Hye and that after his death they became the properties of his widow Sher Banu. The plaintiff contended that after the death of Sher Banu, her sisters and brothers who were the heirs of Sher Banu became entitled to those properties and that the plaintiff being one such heir was...
Tag this Judgment!Muppanna Halappa Vs. Channappa Halappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant169; AIR1964Mys169; (1963)2MysLJ346
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The question presented for determination in this appeal is, whether the action of the Collector, in partitioning an estate tinder Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code) pursuant to a decree passed by the court under Order 20 Rule 18(1) is open to review and correction by the court which passed the decree. That question arises in this way: In Special Civil Suit No. 76/1937 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Dharwar, instituted by respondent 1 against the appellant and respondent-2 who were defendants 2 and 3 respectively, for partition of joint family properties, a decree for partition of an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government was passed in accordance with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Order XX of the Code. The decree, inter alia, declared the rights of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 who were interested in the suit property, 2nd directed partition of the estate and separation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Umamaheswar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR749(KAR); [1964]52ITR749(Karn)
1. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follow : 'By this application, the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court a question of law, which is said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 21st March, 1962, in I.T.A. No. 7984 of 1960-61. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order, we hereby draw up an agreed statement of the case and refer it to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee carries on business under the name and style of 'Umamaheswar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory' at Raichur. For the assessment year 1959-60, it claimed registration under section 26A. Copy of the application is annexure 'A' and forms part of the case. K. Venkatrao, son of Dharmaji Rao, and his four sons Govindrao, Shivajirao, Dasaratharao and Markandarao carried on business under the name and style of 'V.D. Kadam & Sons' from August 1, 1952, unde...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Rao (B.K.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1963
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ717Kant; (1965)2MysLJ382
ORDERNittoor Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks that the order of reference made by respondent 1, the State of Mysore, to respondent 2, the labour court at Hubli, of an industrial dispute between the petitioner, who was the employer as proprietor of Prabhat Talkies, Mangalore, and the workmen of Prabhat Talkies, represented by the secretary, Cinema Mazdoor Sangh, Mangalore, in regard to the retrenchment of the employee (respondent 4). Kesava Devangha, be quashed as also the award by respondent 2, the labour court, on the reference. 2. The reference is attached on the ground that previous to that reference, i.e., under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government had, after receiving the report of the conciliation officer in regard to the very dispute, taken a decision to the effect that the dispute did not merit reference for adjudication, that the decision had been communicated to the parties concerned and that, therefore after hav...
Tag this Judgment!C. Muttu Vs. Bharath Match Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant293; AIR1964Mys293
Hombe Gowda, J. 1. This Revision petition which is directed against the order of the II Addl. Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore, in Small cause suit No, 163 of 1958 dismissing the suit with costs, has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us, as it raises' an important question, whether a suit brought against a person who is later discovered to have been dead at the time the suit was filed can be amended by substituting another person as defendant,2. The petitioner filed a suit against one P. K. Periaswamy Nadar, Proprietor, Bharath Match Works, Sivakasi, on 31-7-1958, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 974-49 nP. with future interest and costs, in the Court of the II Addl. Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore. Subsequently it was found that F. K. Periaswamy Nadar, the defendant, had died on 1-6-1958, that is, long prior to the date of the filing of the suit. The petitioner, therefore made an application under Order XXII Rule 4 and Sec. 151 of the C. P. C. on 19-9-1958...
Tag this Judgment!Sarjerao Appasaheb Shitole Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, A-ward, Belgaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR372(KAR); [1964]52ITR372(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. These petitions are connected. One Sarjerao Appasaheb Shitole has filed both these petitions. He is the karta of his family. As karta of his family, he has been assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. In pursuance of the afore-mentioned assessments, two demand notices for the two assessment years mentioned above have been issued to him on October 24, 1962. In these petitions, he prays that this court may be pleased to call for the assessment proceedings in question and quash the demand notices issued to him by issuing writs of certiorari or such other writs or orders or directions as we deem fit. 2. Sri B.V. Krishnaswami Rao, the learned counsel for the assessee, in the course of his arguments, attacked the impugned notices on three different grounds. They ar : (i) Wealth-tax on lands and buildings is ultra vires of the powers of Parliament; (ii) Under any circumstance, Parliament could not have imposed wealth-tax on undivided families; and (i...
Tag this Judgment!Maneyapanda Madappa Vs. Kuttanda Kariappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant80; AIR1964Mys80; (1963)2MysLJ364
Hombe Gowda, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Coorg, Meracara in O. S. No. 36 of 1959, decreeing the suit filed, by the respondent claiming damages from the appellant to the extent of Rs. 700/- only with a further direction that the appellant should pay costs of the respondent on the sum of Rs. 700/-as damages.2. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant claiming damages of Rs. 6,000/- in respect of the destruction said to have been caused to his orange garden on account of the fire started by the appellant in his garden which is adjacent to the respondent's garden, on 19-3-1959. The respondent is the owner of an estate bearing S. Nos. 113/1, and 113/2 in Ammathi village, South Coorg. He had raised orange trees on an extent of 11.93 acres in these survey numbers and they were bearing fruits. The appellant is the owner of Survey No. 135 of the same village. The said land is adjacent to the garden land belonging to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »