Karnataka Court September 1964 Judgments
Rajubandi Venkaiah Ramiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR399(KAR); [1966]62ITR399(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. In these interlocutory applications, made in the above mentioned income-tax referred cases, a common question of law is raised, viz., whether a successfully assessee to whom costs are awarded by the court is entitled to get the fee of Rs. 100 deposited by him before the Appellate Tribunal, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. I. T. R. C. No. 13 of 1962 is a reference under section 66(2) of the 'Act'. I. T. R. Cs. Nos. 17 of 1962 and 4 of 1963 are references under section 66(1) of the 'Act'. In all these cases, the court answered the question referred in favour of the assessee and ordered the department to pay the costs of the assessee. The advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 250. While preparing the bill of costs, the Registrar had not included therein the sum of Rs. 100 paid by the assessee under section 66(1). Hence, these applications have been made under section 152, Civil Procedure Code, to correct the err...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Waheedkhan Pathan Soudhagar Vs. Reny Charles Pevy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1964
Reported in: (1965)ILLJ361Kant
1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings; it raises two questions for consideration. They are : (1) whether the railway provident fund which vests in the dependent, the wife of the subscriber, after his death, under Sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, is liable for attachment for debt incurred by her before the death of the subscriber; and (2) whether the benefit conferred by the Provident Funds Act, 1925, as to the immunity from attachment of the provident fund so long as it stands to the credit of the subscriber, can be waived by the person on whom the benefit has been conferred. 2. The facts leading to the two questions may shortly be stated as follows. Respondent 1, Mrs. Reny Charles Pevy, and her deceased husband Charles Pevy executed a promissory note in favour of the appellant on 27 April 1957 for a sum of Rs. 3,200. The latter Instituted a suit against the executants for the recovery of the amount due under the promissory note. But during the penden...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Waheedkhan Pathan Soudhagar Vs. Reny Charles Pavey and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant303; AIR1965Mys303; (1965)1MysLJ35
(1) This appeal arises in execution proceedings; it raises two questions for consideration. They are:1. Whether the railway provident fund which vests in the dependent, the wife of the subscriber after his death, under sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, is liable for attachment for debt incurred by her before the death of the subscriber; and 2. Whether the benefit conferred by the Provident Funds Act, 1925 as to the immunity from attachment of the provident fund so long as it stands to the credit of the subscriber, can be waived by the person on whom the benefit has been conferred. (2) The facts leading to the two questions may shortly be stated as follows:(3) Respondent 1, Mrs. Reny Charles Pevy, and her deceased husband Charles Pevy executed a pronote in favour of the appellant on 27th of April 1957 for a sum of Rs. 3,200/-. The latter instituted a suit against the executants for the recovery of the amount due under the pronote. But during the pendency of the suit,...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Dhawan Vs. Santosh Kumari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant110; AIR1965Mys110
Somnath Iyer, J.(1)This is a husband's appeal from an order made by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, refusing a decree for divorce under Section 13(1)(viii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was in the year 1939 that the two spouses were married in Gujaranwala which is now in Pakistan. They resided together for sometime in Rawalpindi which is also now in Pakistan. Where there was a partition of the country, the two spouses began to live in India permanently. The husband is in Bangalore, and the wife is in Delhi.(2) On July 23, 1959, the husband made an application to the Principal District Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous No. 200/1959 for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion on the part of the wife. That decree was made in his favour on September 28, 1959. On March 9, 1962, the husband made an application under Section 13(1)(viii) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground that the decree for judicial separation had not been followed by an...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Malleshappa Vs. Firm of Sha Veerchand Pratapmal by Its Proprietor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant300; AIR1965Mys300; (1965)1MysLJ297
ORDER(1) The question for determination in this case is whether this application which has been put in for the revision of an interlocutory order passed under O. IX, R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be entertained.(2) The material facts bearing on the point are as follows:The petitioner is defendant No. 2 in O.S. 6/1960 on the file of the Civil Judge's Court, at Bellary. He did not appear when the suit was called for hearing on the date originally fixed for the trial, and he was declared ex parte on 5-1-1961. Evidence was recorded on that day, and the date for judgment was fixed for 6-1-1961, and then for 18-1-1961, and the suit was finally disposed of on the 19th of January 1961. On the 18th of January he applied to the Court to set aside the order declaring him ex parte and permit him to contest the suit on merits. That petition came up for hearing and was dismissed the application under O. IX, R. 7, this revision petition is preferred on 6-11-1963.(3) The petitioner's lea...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Revanna Vs. T.V. Mallappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Kant258; AIR1965Mys258; (1964)2MysLJ394
Hegde, J.(1) In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India(it ought to be only under Article 227, the petitioner challenges the legality of the order passed by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore(to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 367 of 1963(M.V.) on its file on the ground that the same is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The tribunal in that case confirmed the order of the S. T. A. T. which in its turn had confirmed the order of the R. T. A., Tumkur.(2) Sri Puttaswamy the learned counsel for the petitioner formulated before us three questions of law in support of the pleas put forward in this petition. They are(i) the decision of the tribunal that the petitioner had not made any written representation under section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(to be hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is patently erroneous,(ii) the first respondent the only contesting respondent,is estopped from contending...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›