Karnataka Court March 1964 Judgments
S.J. Dharmachand and anr. Vs. Sha Sakalchand Babulal JaIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Kant24; AIR1967Mys24
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from an order made by the Civil Judge overruling as many as four objections to the execution of the decree preferred by the fourth judgment-debtor. 2. The decree was a money-decree and the amount claimed in the execution application which was presented on August 1, 1960, was Rs. 13,363.22 nP. The Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, passed that decree and the execution application with which we are concerned in this appeal was also presented to that Court. At one stage, the decree was at the instance of the decree-holder transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tumkur, and that order was made in Execution Case No. 17 of 1956 by the Civil Judge, Bangalore, it is obvious that the execution proceedings before the Subordinate Judge, Tumkur, did not yield anything fruitful to the decree-holder as can be seen from the certificate forwarded by the Subordinate Judge, Tumkur, to which in the proceedings of the Civil Judge. Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!Ramacharya Narayana Charya Burli and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant1; AIR1965Mys1; ILR1964KAR643; (1964)1MLJ261
T.K. Tukol, J. (1) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the decisions of this Court in R.A. No. 34 of 1955 and R.A. No. 161 of 1955 lay down the law correctly?'(2) When R.A. No. 22 of 1959 which involves the question as to the apportionment of compensation between the appellants representing the landlord's interest and the respondents representing tenant's interest was argued before a Division Bench, the two decisions mentioned in the question referred to the Full Bench were relied upon by Mr. V. Krishna Murthi as laying down the correct ratio of apportionment of compensation between the landlord and the tenant and prays for a decision of the appeal on that basis. But Mr. Jagirdar for the Respondents drew the attention of the Bench which heard the appeal to a decision of the Privy Council in Rakhal Chandra v. Secretary of State, AIR 1929 PC 113 and that of the Supreme Court in Vithal Yeshwant v. Shikandarkhan, : [1963]2SCR285 which do not appear to accord with the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Dasappa and anr. Vs. Jogiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant54; AIR1965Mys54; ILR1964KAR545; (1964)1MysLJ254
Narayana Pai, J. (1) The two questions referred to the Full Bench in these cases relate to the effect as well as the validity of Section 5 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1928 (Mysore Act XVIII of 1928).(2) One question referred by the common order of reference in the three Revision Petitions is the same as the first of the two questions referred by the common order of reference in the Second Appeals. The two questions are the following :-'I. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act apply only to transactions which took place at any time within a period of six years before the Act was extended to the local area concerned or whether those provisions are also applicable to transactions entered into subsequent to such extension? (2) Whether the above provisions have ceased to be operative after the introduction of the Central Evidence Act and Central Transfer of Property Act to Mysore, as being contrary to the provisions of those enactments?'(...
Tag this Judgment!K. Baliah and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR221(KAR); [1964]54ITR221(Karn); (1964)2MysLJ325
Hegde, J.1. This is a reference made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in pursuance of the orders of this court. It arises from I.T. As. Nos. 895, 896 and 897 of 1954-55 on the file of the Tribunal in question. The questions of law referred for our opinion are : '(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in relying upon the average yield of another excise contractor without giving an opportunity to the assessee for rebuttal and (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal can rely upon the average yield of only one contractor to determine the yield of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is an association of persons doing abkari contract in Sadam of Gulbarga District which was formerly a part of the old Hyderabad State and now a part of the Mysore State. In this case we are concerned with the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The Income-tax Officer re...
Tag this Judgment!iyengar (B.V.N.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1964
Reported in: ILR1964KAR639; (1965)IILLJ519Kant; (1964)2MysLJ153
ORDERHedge, J. 1. The petitioner who was a Depute Superintendent of Police had been dismissed on the basis of a charge framed against him on October 26, 1959. Aggrieved by that order, he has come up to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari by calling for the relevant records and quashing the order made by the Government on February 2, 1962 in pursuance of the charge framed against him. 2. The charge against the petitioner reads : 'Objectionable and unbecoming conduct in a responsible police officer of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police in that you wilfully connived at the smuggling of rice from Bidar to Bombay State through the Chandakapur police check-post on the night of 24/25 May, 1959 by allowing six lorries bearing Registration Nos. (1) M.Y.Q. - 662, (2) B.Y.U. - 11, (3) M.Y.Q. - 670, (4) A.P.T. - 3261, (5) M.Y.Q. - 692, and (6) A.P.T. - 4142, Carrying rice bags which were detained by the villagers of Kalyani beyond Chandakapu...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjian Setty Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR425(KAR); [1964]54ITR425(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, Bench, at the instance of the assessee under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. This reference arises out of the Tribunal's order in G.T.A. No. 103 of 1960-61, dated 12th November, 1962. 2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : 3. The applicant, Nanjiah Setty, his only son, Gangadhara Setty, and the four sons 'through' the latter originally constituted a Hindu undivided family, which owned mainly movable properties in the shape of shares in the limited companies and an item of immovable property. By an instrument dated 1st March, 1956, the members of the family aforesaid declared their intention to remain divided in status from the joint family which was followed up by a registered deed of release dated 15th March, 1956, dividing the properties by metes and bounds. About 1st March, Gangadhara Setty's wife was enceinte. A male c...
Tag this Judgment!N. Peer Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: ILR1964KAR618; [1964]54ITR681(KAR); [1964]54ITR681(Karn); (1964)2MysLJ333
Govinda Bhatt, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee and arises out of his assessments for the years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, for our decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lease amount of Rs. 5,361 for the assessment year 1953-54, Rs. 3,750 for the assessment year 1954-55, Rs. 19,724 for the assessment years 1955-56, and Rs. 1,200 for the assessment year 1956-57 paid to the owners of the lands for extracting iron ore were capital expenditure or revenue expenditure in the respective years ?' 2. The assessee was carrying on iron are mining business. For the relevant assessment years, he claimed deduction as revenue expenditure the amounts specified in the question referred. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claims holding that what the assessee purchased was not his sto...
Tag this Judgment!Segu Buchiah Setty Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR225(KAR); [1965]58ITR225(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. In this writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, and Deputy Commissioner, Kolar) for recovery of income-tax assessed on an unregistered firm by name Messrs. Segu Buchiah Sett : P. Venkatachaliah and Co., Srinivasapur, for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The petitioner was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Segu Buchiah Sett : P. Venkatachaliah and Co., Srinivasapur, hereinafter called 'the firm' during the period from 1st February, 1953, to 30th June, 1955. That firm was assessed to tax for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 as an unregistered firm by separate assessment orders made on 31st August, 1956. The notices of demand for payment of tax were issued to and served on the firm on 31st August, 1956. Petitioner's case is that the firm discontinued its business with effect from 1st October, 1956. It is stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Mohamad Basha Tannery Vs. their Workmen and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ449Kant
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a tannery. The petitioner has, Under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, sought relief in this Court to quash the order of the labour court (respondent 2) made on 17 October 1963 in Reference No. 46 of 1963 on its file and to issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition to respondent 2 from proceeding any farther with the said reference until the question, whether the petitioner establishment is of seasonal character, is decided by the State Government (respondent 3). 2. The State Government (respondent 3) referred the following question for decision of respondent 2 under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act' : 'Are the workmen of M. A. Mohamad Basha Tannery, Kalagondanhalli, Bangalore-6, justified in demanding lay-off compensation for forty days with effect from 1 December 1962.' 3. That order of reference was made on 18 July 1963, and the petitioner was notified by respondent 2 on 30 July...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Mohamed Basha Vs. Workmen of Tannery Workers' Association and Ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant90; AIR1965Mys90; (1964)IILLJ449bKant
Govinda Bhat, J.(1) The petitioner is the proprietor of a Tannery. The petitioner has, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought relief in this Court to quash the order of the Labour Court (Respondent 2) made on October 17,11963, in Reference No. 46 of 1963 on its file and to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition to respondent 2 from proceeding any further with the said reference until the question, whether the petitioner's establishment is of seasonal character, is decided by the State Government (Respondent 3).(2) The State Government (respondent 3) referred the following question for decision of respondent 2 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act' :'Are the workmen of Messrs. M.A. Mohamad Basha Tannery, Kalgondanahalli, Bangalore 6, justified in demanding lay-off compensation for 40 days with effect from 1-12-1962?'.That order of reference was made on July 18, 1963 and the petitioner notified by respondent 2 on July ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›