Karnataka Court June 1964 Judgments
Anthappa Bhandary Vs. Poovu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant124; AIR1965Mys124
(1) The appellant in this appeal as well as in the connected appeal R.S.A. 38 of 1962 was plaintiff in the original suit. It would be convenient to dispose of both the appeal and the cross-objections by common judgment.(2) Plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of the Additional District Munsiff, Karkal (O. S. 72 of 1958) claiming the following reliefs against the defendants for (1) a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to construct any shed or install any oil pump on the northern sides of the tank situated in Survey No. 56/11 in the portions of Survey No. 56/19 and 56/11 belonging to the plaintiff and for possession of the site of the shed put up by defendants in a portion of S. No. 56/19 belonging to the plaintiff; (2) for a mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove the tiled engine shed built by the defendant on the northern side of the tank in S. No. 56/11 and situated in the portion of S. No. 56/19 on the spot which is marked as 'H' in the plan of the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Parwatawwa Vs. Channawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Kant100; AIR1966Mys100; (1965)1MysLJ577
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This second appeal concerns the succession to the properties of a certain Siddalingiah who died in the year 1954. His wife Siddavva who survived him died in the year 1956 and the defendant is their daughter.(2) The source of this appeal is a suit brought by Channavva the plaintiff, claiming to be he second wife of Siddalingiah. That she was married in the year 1951 to Siddalingiah in the State of Bombay was her case, and, she claimed Siddalingiah's properties as his widow to the exclusion of the defendant. She sought a decree for possession of those properties from the defendant.(3) The defendant did not in the courts below admit that the plaintiff was the wife of Siddalingiah, and pleaded that she was only his concubine. But, both the courts below pronounced that there was a marriage between the plaintiff and Siddalingiah. But while the Munsiff who thought that that marriage was invalid dismissed the suit, the District Judge to whom the plaintiff appealed, found th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR259(KAR); [1965]55ITR259(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. These petitions are connected petitions and they raise a common question of law. There is a common petitioner in these cases. The petitioner prays that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order made by the respondent on April 25, 1962, under section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (the order impugned in these proceedings) and to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business at Bangalore. It applied for registration under section 26A of the Act for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. Its applications were rejected by the Income-tax Officer. Its appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unsuccessful. Thereafter, it took up the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Those appeals were rejected as being barred by...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Flour Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant70; AIR1965Mys70; ILR1964KAR822; (1964)1MysLJ499
Hegde, J.(1) These petitions are connected petitions and they raise a common question of law. There is a common petitioner in these cases. The Petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order made by the respondent on 25-4-1962 under Section 33-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (the order impugned in these proceedings) and to issue the appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law.(2) The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business at Bangalore. It applied for registration under Section 26-A of the Act for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. Its applications were rejected by the Income-tax Officer. Its appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Assistant Commissioner were unsuccessful. Thereafter, it took up the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Those appeals were rejected as being barred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Mudaliar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MysLJ508; [1964]15STC900(Kar)
Hegde, J. 1. These appeals are filed by a common assessee. They raise a common question of law, that question being whether the assessee was entitled to a notice under section 12(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, to be hereinafter called 'the Act' read with rule 16(b) framed under that Act before assessment. 2. The material facts of the case are as follows : In respect of the assessment years with which we are concerned in these cases, the assessee submitted his returns on 31st December, 1958. According to his returns, a portion of his turnover related to sales in the course of inter-State trade coming within the purview of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act but he failed to produce the 'C' Forms as required by sub-section (4) of that section. He failed not only to produce the 'C' Forms along with his returns but he also failed to produce them before the assessment orders were made. In view of the failure of the assessee to produce the 'C' Forms, the Commerci...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Doraiswamy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ293
ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in the following circumstances:2. Respondents 2 and 3 who are mother and daughter respectievly, filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the first respondent, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent. After contest an order awarding a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month was passed In favour of respondents 2 and 3 by the City Magistrate, Bangalore. The first respondent did not pay the maintenance so awarded to respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 made an application on 31-1-1963 and sought for the enforcement of the order of maintenance passed in their favour. They stated in their application that the first respondent is an employee in the Railways Department getting a salary of Rs. 130/-, that he had Intentionally disobeyed the orders passed b...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabha B.M. and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1964
Reported in: (1964)IILLJ433Kant
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.- 1. Petitioners, who are allottees to the State of Mysore under Sub-section (3) of S. 115 of the States Reorganization Act. 1956, from the Department of Excise and Prohibition under the Board of Revenue from Madras State, have filed this writ petitione under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of respondent 3, the Commissioner of Excise, who has included the names of the petitioner in the provisional inter-State seniority list of Excise Assistant Inspectors as on 1 November 1956, on the ground that respondent 3, when he prepared and published the inter-State seniority list, was not the head of the department. Though in their petition the petitioners had claimed a large number of distinct and separate reliefs, they restricted their prayer in their affidavit filed on 9 April 1964 to the following two reliefs : '(i) to declare that the petitioners constitute a separate department, viz., Excise and Prohibition Department, under the Inspector-...
Tag this Judgment!Safdar HusaIn (Managing Partner, Jaleel Beedi Works, Sira) Vs. Anantha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1964
Reported in: [1964(9)FLR390]; (1964)IILLJ419Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the managing partner of Jaleel Beedi Works, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records in Calendar Case Nos. 2295 and 2296 of 1962 on the file of respondent 4 and quash the proceedings by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. The material facts of the case are as follows. Respondents 1 and 2 claim to be the employees in Jaleel Beedi Works. Their grievance is that the wages due to them have not been paid. Therefore, they applied to respondent 3 to determine the wages due to them. Respondent 3 purported to go into that question and decided that the Jaleel Beedi Works should pay to respondent 1 a sum of Rs. 800 and respondent 2 a sum of Rs. 300. The order of respondent 3 is marked as annexure D in this case. On the strength of that order, respondents 1 and 2 approached respondent 4 under Sub-section (5) of S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, for executing the order in question...
Tag this Judgment!Parameshwara Ayyar M.K. Vs. Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1964
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ169Kant
Tukol, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated June 20, 1963, passed by the industrial tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to his original post of an accountant. 2. The facts of this case are very simple. The petitioner was appointed as an accountant, on probation for a period of six months in the first instance on March 30, 1959, in the office of the respondent. He joined service on April 7, 1959. On October 5, 1959, the respondent extended his period of probation for a period of four months with effect from October 7, 1959. On April 1, 1960, the respondent issued another order extending the services of the petitioner for a period of six months with effect from February 7, 1960. On June 6, 1960, the petitioner was served with a notice to the effect that his service will be terminated from July 7, 1960. 3. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner served on the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Parameshwara Iyer Vs. Management of Mysore Machinery Manufacturer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant91; AIR1965Mys91
Tukol, J.(1)The petition has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 20th June 1963 passed by Industrial Tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to his original post of an accountant.(2) The facts of this case are very simple. The petitioner was appointed as an accountant, on probation for a period of six months in the first instance on 30th March, 1959 in the office of the respondent. He joined service on the 7th April 1959. On 5th October 1959, the respondent extended his period of probation for a period of four months with effect from 7th October 1959. On 1-4-1960 the respondent issued another order extending the services of the petitioner for a period of six months with effect from 7th February 1960. On 6-6-1960 the petitioner was served with a notice to the effect that his service will be terminated from 7th July 1960.On receipt of this notice the petitioner served on the respondent a lawyer's ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »