Karnataka Court January 1964 Judgments
A. Manjundappa Vs. Sonnappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant73; AIR1965Mys73
ORDER(1) This Civil Revision Petition, raises an interesting question under Order XX, Rule 18(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure under the following circumstances :--The petitioner instituted O.S. 133/49-50 against the respondents for partition and possession of his share of the joint family property. A preliminary decree came to be passed in his favour on 22nd January 1951. It reads as follows :-- 'It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and is directed to take possession of his share of the properties from the defendants. The defendants are directed to pay past the mesne profits of 3 candies of ragi and 15 kilograms of avarage or their value of Rs. 120/- with costs and mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession will be ascertained in an application under Order XX rule 12 C.P.C. A preliminary decree with three months' time is drawn up. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!Basavarajappa (A.G.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: ILR1964KAR479; (1968)IILLJ455Kant; (1964)1MysLJ314
ORDERHegde, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (mere appropriately it should be a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution), the petitioner challenges the legality of the order passed by the Government in No. FD 3 CSE 60, dated 22 September, 1962, hereinafter called 'the impugned order.' By means of that order, the Government of Mysore (respondent 1) reduced the petitioner to the minimum of the grade of second division clerk for a period of three years after finding him guilty of charges 2 and 3 of the charges framed against him on 15 December, 1961. 2. The facts of this case lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner was a first division clerk in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Davangere, in the month of December 1959. In December he took one month's leave and came to Bangalore. On 26 December, 1959 he is said to have gone to the shop of one S. M. Seetharamayya (P.W. 1.) in Bangalore and told him that an anonymous petition (Ex. P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Poddar MartIn Mining and Minerals Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant240; AIR1965Mys240; ILR1964KAR468; (1964)2MysLJ316
ORDER1. These are Tax Revision Petition preferred by the assessee under S. 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. In S.T.R.P. No. 42/63, which relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the disputed turnover is Rs. 96,642-50 and in S.T.R.P. No. 40 of 1963 which relates to the year 1960-61, the disputed turnover is Rs. 3,11,306.91. The contention of the assessee in regard to the transactions relating to the disputed turnovers in both the years is, that they relate to purchases made in the course of inter-State trade and as such, not chargeable to tax under S. 5(3)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act,1957. The contention of the assessee has been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal holding that from the agreements of sale produced, it cannot be held that movement of goods from one State to another has been occasioned under the terms of the contract and consequently, the transactions pertaining to the disputed turnover do not fall within the category of sales or purchases in the course of inter-S...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mohindeen Hajee Sons Vs. the Chairman, Mangalore Port Trust Board a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant330; AIR1966Mys330; (1965)1MysLJ6
ORDER(1) The petitioner firm owns 22 boats called Lighters and carries on the trade of lighters contractors and clearing and forwarding contractors at the Port of Mangalore. The Petitioner 's trade involves the transshipmentment of the Cargo from the ships to the shore and the carrying of shipments from the shore to the ships. The petitioner plies its boats for the aforesaid purpose of transhipment.(1a) In the year 1962 the petitioner built a Tug of its own called MUBARAK registered under the Merchants Shipping Act, 1958. The petitioner used the said Tug MUBARAK to tow its boats between the ships and the harbour. The Port Authorities in May 1962 requested the petitioner to stop the towage operations until further orders. The petitioner also applied for a Harbour Craft License in respect of the Tug MUBARAK under the Indian Ports Act, 1908 read with the Harbour Craft Rules framed thereunder. The Port Authorities under Ex. A-4 stated that the application for the issue of a Harbour Craft L...
Tag this Judgment!B.H. Shankar Singh and ors. Vs. P. Abdul Azeez and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Kant288; AIR1964Mys288; (1964)1MysLJ307
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bellary (Respondent-2) made on 9-5-1962 granting a stage carriage permit to respondent-1 to operate between Bellary and Kampli Via Yemmiganur, Kurugodu and Kolur, has been challenged in these writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the material facts leading to the grant of the permit to respondent-1. On the invitation calling for applications for permit for trips between Bellary and Kampli, respondent 1 made an application. The first petitioner in W. P. 633/62 and the petitioner in W. P. 642 of 62, besides themselves applying for permits filed objections' to the grant of the permit to respondent-1. They also made applications for extension of their routes Bellary-Kurugod to Kampli. Those applications came to be considered by the second respondent, and an order was made on 18-2-1960 by which it found that ...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Superintendent, C. Ex., Dandeli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR267(KAR); [1964]54ITR267(Karn)
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. This petition is misconceived for more reasons than one. The petitioner is a manufacturer of different varieties of paper. He commenced manufacturing papers in about the year 1959. One variety of paper which he manufactures is known by the name 'M. G. White Poster Paper'. Excise duty was levied on the manufacture of this paper from 1959 to 1961 under Section 3 read with Entry 17(3) of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In about the middle of 1961, the authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act, felt that the petitioner was short-levied in respect of the manufacture in question. They took the view that the goods in question fall within entry 17(4) which is subject to higher rate of duty. Accordingly, on 30-8-61, the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, wrote to the petitioner intimating that for the period from 23-3-61 to 8-7-61, excise duty will be levied on the manufacture of the papers in question, as falling under entry 17(4). The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. K.D. Kamat and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR72(KAR); [1964]54ITR72(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. This is reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The question of law referred to us is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Messrs. K. D. Kamath & Co. could be granted registration under section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1959-60 ?' 2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : 3. The assessee is a firm consisting of six partners, (1) K. D. Kamath, (2) N. G. Kamath, (3) S. D. Kamath, (4) D. J. Mohite, (5) S. G. Joshi and (6) Y. B. Kate. The assessment year is 1959-60 and the corresponding previous year is the year ended March 31, 1959. The partnership is constituted under a deed dated 20th March, 1959, and it is recorded in the deed that the business of the partnership was being carried on in partnership form 1st October, 1958. The partnership was registered under the partnership Act on or about 11th August, 1959. Clauses 8, 9, 12 and 16 of...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Ganapath Mehata and ors. Vs. Rajaram Dhondichand Shaha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant59; AIR1965Mys59; ILR1964KAR294; (1964)1MysLJ325
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The only question involved in this appeal is one of limitation and it arises in this way. On November 30, 1948, in proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act there was a decree. That decree provided for two matters. It provided for the redemption of a mortgage created either by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title. The other matter of which it provided for was a sale, if there was no redemption, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,403-9-0 together with interests thereon determined to be payable to the defendant in that suit. The plaintiffs did not redeem the mortgage and so, the defendant executed the decree. The execution application with which we are concerned in this appeal was one presented on January 20, 1954.It was stated by the decree-holder in the execution application that the execution application was within the time since there was an acknowledgment of the decree on August 14, 1951, through the payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Appana Vs. the State of Mysore and the ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant19; AIR1965Mys19
ORDER(1) The petitioner who has been officiating as Deputy Superintendent of Police on promotion from his substantive post of Inspector of Police, has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the memo dated 15-1-1962 which, in effect, reduces him in rank, on the ground that the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution had not been followed in passing that order. He has complained that the order has not only resulted in loss of higher pay and allowances but has also the effect of postponement of his future chances of promotion and consequent loss of seniority.(2) The facts relevant to the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are few and simple; The petitioner who is a double graduate of the Madras University joined the Police Department in the former Coorg State as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1935 and served in that capacity till 1-11-1949, when he was promoted as Inspector of Police. He was confirmed in the latter grade in...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. H. Ibrahim Saheb and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC273(Kar)
Hegde, J.1. These revision petitions are filed under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, to be referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter. They are connected petitions. They raise a common question of law. They are directed against the same assessee. The transactions with which we are concerned in these cases are sales of Karadi oil. S.T.R.P. 46 of 1963 relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60 and S.T.R.P. 47 of 1963 relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59. In these petitions, the question of law for decision is whether the assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed by him. 2. There is no dispute that the transactions with which we are concerned in these cases fall within the scope of section 5 of the Act. The controversy centres round the question whether they are exempted under section 8 read with entry 28 of the Fifty Schedule. It is needless to say that it is for the assessee to satisfactorily establish th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›