Karnataka Court April 1964 Judgments
Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-24-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MysLJ372; [1964]15STC771(Kar)
Hegde, J.1. These cases raise identical questions of law. Hence they can be dealt with in one judgment. 2. From the arguments advanced at the Bar, the following questions of law arise for decision :- (i) Whether in the circumstances of the cases before us, the assessee's transactions constitute a contract for 'sale of goods' or contracts of 'work and labour' (ii) Whether, even if those transactions comprise an element of sale of goods, the assessees are not entitled to exemption from sales tax for the portion of the turnover attributable to 'work and labour' and (iii) Under any circumstances, could the respondent levy sales tax in respect of the transactions in question at a rate higher than that mentioned in section 5(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') namely at 2 per cent. on the turnover 3. One 'The Shanker Vittal Motor Co., Ltd., Mangalore' is the petitioner in S.T.R.P. Nos. 57 and 58 of 1963. S.T.R.P. No. 57 of 1963 is directed agai...
Tag this Judgment!Govindappa Tirkappa Hirakeri Vs. Inspector General of Registration and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant25; AIR1965Mys25; (1964)1MysLJ478
Govinda Bhat, J. (1) The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1979, 2003, 2009 and 2012 of 1963, aggrieved by the Order bearing No. D. 2-Dis. 390/58-59 dated September 12, 1963, of respondent I, whereby the petitioners were reverted as II Division Clerks from their officiating post of II Grade Sub Registrars, have sought relief in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and prayed that the order impugned may be quashed. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2023 and 2024/63 similarly reverted by the order bearing No. D2-Dis. 390/58-59 dated August 22, 1963, of respondent 2 in the said petitions, have also prayed that the order of reversion may be quashed. Since the grounds of challenge in all these petitions are common, they can conveniently be disposed by a common order.(2)The petitioners were appointed as Sub Registry Karkuns in the Department of Registration in the erstwhile Bombay State; on the reorganization of States, they were allotted to the new Mysore States. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Mount Corporation and ors. Vs. Director of Industries and Commerce in ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant143; AIR1965Mys143; ILR1964KAR994; (1964)1MysLJ513
Govinda Bhat, J.(1) These Writ Petitions arise under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, (Central Act XVIII of 1947), hereinafter called the Act. The petitioners have challenged the actions of the State Government (Respondent 2) and the Director of Industries and Commerce in Mysore (Respondent 1), taken in respect of the applications made by the petitioners for licences for import of stainless steel, for the period April-September, 1963, which resulted in the rejection of the applications by the Assistant Iron and Steel Controller, Madras (Respondent 3), on the ground that no Essentiality Certificate has been received from the Sponsoring Authority in the case of each one of the petitioners, and the petitioners have sought appropriate writs to quash the orders of Respondent 3 rejecting the applications, and for a mandamus to Respondent 1, the Director of Industries and Commerce, to follow the relevant rules and make his recommendations in accordance with law.(2) Petitioners are...
Tag this Judgment!J. Devaiah Vs. Nagappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant102; AIR1965Mys102; (1964)1MysLJ488
(1) This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It arised from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Mysore, in Election Petition No. 48/62 on its file.(2) The appellant is the returned candidate in the general elections held in 1962, from the Mandya Constituency to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. The first respondent herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He is one of the voters in that Constituency. The second respondent was one of the defeated candidates. He was the Congress nominee. The third respondent was yet another candidate who contested the general elections without success. The tribunal set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices falling under Section 123(4) of the 'Act' during the Election. It declared the second respondents having been elected despite the fact that he had secured less voters than the appellant. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!Lucy Mary Agnes Saladanha Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant72; AIR1965Mys72; (1964)1MysLJ542
(1) The short point involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by his award for the period between the date on which possession of the acquitted property was taken and the date on which the compensation amount was deposited.(2) The material facts are these :The appellant is the claimant. His property was acquired and in those acquisition proceedings the award was made on September, 1952 by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,678-1-7. On the application of the claimant for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, a reference was made on November 27, 1952. The Court awarded a further sum of Rs. 780-13-11 by way of enhanced compensation. Although the claimant, during the proceeding before the court, made an application that the Land Acquisition Officer should be called upon to deposit the compensation awarded in court, that deposit was not made until ...
Tag this Judgment!Adamsab Usmansab Kanakya Vs. Gurushinddayya Lingayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Kant147; AIR1967Mys147
1. In this Second Appeal by the surety for the performance of a decree, the only question raised relates to the interpretation of the principal or operative clause of the bond executed by him in favour of the Court.2. The facts which are not in dispute are the following:--The first respondent in this appeal filed a suit against the other two respondents as defendants 1 and 2 for the dissolution of and taking of accounts in respect of a partnership business alleged to have been carried by the parties for some years prior to the suit. According to the averments contained in the plaint, the plaintiff had been for a considerable time advancing moneys to the second defendant for or in connection with the business carried on by the latter in a small cloth shop conducted by him, and the understanding between the parties was that in lieu of interest for the advances, the borrower-second defendant should give me lender-plaintiff an amount equal to half share of the profits derived from the clot...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Narasimhiah Setty Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chikmagalu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR757(KAR); [1964]53ITR757(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These petitions raise more or less common question of law. The principal question that arise for consideration is whether the 'dividends' received by the assessees in the relevant 'previous years' in respect of coffee delivered to the coffee Board in prior years can be considered, for the purpose of agricultural income-tax, as their agricultural income of the year in which the 'dividends' were received. The concerned Agricultural Income-tax Officers have taken or appears to take the view that the 'dividends' in question should be considered as the agricultural income of the assessees in the year of their receipt. 2. The petitioners in these petitions except in W.P. No. 913 of 1959 prayed for writs of mandamus or mandatory directions to the concerned Agricultural Income-tax Officer, to forbears from levying or collecting taxes under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. On their cash receipts ('dividends') relating to their coffee crop of 1955-56 or earlier seas...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Nataraj Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer, City Circle Ii, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR250(KAR); [1965]56ITR250(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. These are connected petitions. Common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. Therefore, they can be dealt with in one order. 2. All the petitioners are the children of one Nagappa. The question of their liability to be assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 arises in these petitions. Originally, Nagappa was assessed to tax, the income with which we are concerned in these petitions. That assessment was set aside by this court in I.T.R.A. No. 3 of 1962 on August 13, 1962. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer, City Circle II, respondent in these petitions, issued notices to the petitioners under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 583, 584, 585 and 588 of 1963 are minors. Notices have been issued in their individual names and not in the name of their guardian. The notices issued to the petitioners were served on K. Shivana, the clerk of Nagappa, the petitioner's father. For...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Nataraj and ors. Vs. Vth Income Tax Officer, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant255; AIR1965Mys255; (1964)1MysLJ503
ORDER(1) These are connected petitions, common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. Therefore, they can be dealt with in one order.(2) All the petitioners are the children of one Nagappa. The question of their liability to be assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 arises in these petitions. Originally, Nagappa was assessed to tax the income with which we are concerned in these petitions. That assessment was set aside by this Court in I.T.R.C. No. 3 of 1962 on 13-8-1962. Thereafter, the Income-Tax Officer, City Circle II, Respondent in these petitions, issued notices to the petitioners under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 583, 584, 585 and 588 of 1963 are minors. Notices have been issued in their individual names and not in the name of their guardian. The notices issued to the Petitioners were served on K. Shivanna the clerk of Nagappa, the petitioners' father. For the assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›