Karnataka Court September 1965 Judgments
Rajashekar Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant304; AIR1966Mys304
Hegde, J.(1) Common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. Hence, they may be conveniently dealt with in one Order.(2) In these petitions, the validity of special assessments made under R. 71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') framed under S. 172 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is called into question.(3) The petitioner in W.P. No. 672/63 is the owner of two plots measuring 200' x 200' in Plot Nos. 1 and 2 in S. No. 33(Khasra Nos. 59 and 60). In Raichur Town That land was originally a tank bed parampok. It was acquired by the Raichur Municipality in the year 1931 for the purpose of establishing a grain and cotton market. But later, the Municipality found that land was not suitable for that purpose. Therefore, it decided to use it for industrial development as per the Master Plan prepared for Raichur Town. The Municipality accordingly carved out several l plots in that land an...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Ugrappa Vs. the Government of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys207; 1966CriLJ929; (1965)2MysLJ584
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.(1) The petitioner is a detenu arrested and detained under the Order dated 29-12-1964 of the Deputy Commissioner and Additional District Magistrate Mysore District (second respondent) issued in exercise of the powers conferred to him by R. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The petitioner was arrested on the 30th December 1964 and is now in detention in the Mysore Jail. This order of detention was confirmed by the first respondent. The State of Mysore under the provisions of Clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 30 a of the Rules on 8th April 1965 and the order of confirmation is marked Ex. 'B' Under the provisions of R. 30-A Sub-rule (7) of the Rules, the first respondent by its order dated 23rd June 1965 it directed the continuance of the order detention made by the second respondent on 29th December 1964. The petitioner complains by his detention is illegal and that the respondent have no power vested in them unde...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Adam Vs. Director of Public Instruction in Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Kant160; AIR1967Mys160; (1966)1MysLJ405
Honniah, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to:(1) quash the letter No. DI. PR. 131 C 7135/63-64 dated 23-11-64, marked as annexure 'C' No. E9. 1610.33/62-3, dated 28-11-1964; marked as annexure 'E'; and the order No. E9.1610-33/62-63, marked as annexure 'L';(2) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere in the appointment of the Head Master, Tahik Board High School, Shiralkoppa; and(3) issue such other writs or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The material facts of this case are: The petitioner is a B. A., B. Ed., of the Mysore University and joined service on 7-8-1950 as Assistant Master in the Municipal High School, Shiralkoppa. He worked in that High School for about 6 years and thereafter he was transferred to Bhadravati, where he worked till 1959 and then he was retransferred to the Municipal High School Shiralkoppa. Under the provisions of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Manikant Lakamsey Nagda of Gadag and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant278; AIR1966Mys278; (1966)1MysLJ387
Honniah, J. (1) The questions that arise for decision in these petitions are substantially the same.(2) The petitioner in W.P. 1165/63 is carrying on business in Ginning and Pressing Cotton in the name and style of Shah Manikantha Lakhamsey Ladha at Gadag. The factory is situated in C.T.S. Nos. 3775/2, 3779/2 and 3780/1 and 2 measuring about 8 acres and assessed to non-agricultural assessment at Rupees 111-33. The petitioner in W.P. 1166/63 is the Managing Partner of Rao Saheb Beedi Manvi Ginning and Pressing Factory situated in C.T.S. Nos. 3778/1 and 3778/2/1 and 43 measuring about 6 acres in Gadag town. This area is assessed at Rs. 236-69. The petitioner in W.P. 1167/63 is the owner of a Ginning and pressing factory at Gadag, which is situated in C.T.S. No. 6706/50-51 measuring about 14, 663 Sq. yards and assessed to non-agricultural assessment at Rs. 38. He also is the owner of C.T.S. No. 6706/31 assessed to non-agricultural assessment at Rs. 1-10. The petitioner in W.P.1168/63 is t...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore Vs. Official Liquidator, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1965
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas143(Kar)
1. This is an application by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore, for an order admitting the claim of Rs.1,44,678.36 against the company in winding up and for a direction to pay the same as a preferential claim. 2. The amount claimed is the total tax liability for two assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56. the assessment order in respect of the former was passed on March 10, 1959, and that in respect of the latter on March 27, 1962. Action was also taken for recovery under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 in October, 1959, and a certificate for recovery through the Deputy Commissioner was issued on December 19, 1960, followed later by a letter dated April 9, 1963, to recover the entire amount claimed in this application. 3. The company was ordered to be wound up by this court on July 6, 1964. 4. So far as the amount of the claim itself is concerned, there can be no doubt about its accuracy because it is covered by orders of assessment. There appears to have been...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Upadhyaya Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mys202; 1966CriLJ924; (1965)2MysLJ630
ORDER(1) The petitioner is detained in the District Prison, Bijapur under the orders of detention dated 30-12-1964 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bijapur, the second respondent is this petition, under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962(hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The order of detention is passed by the second respondent in exercise of the powers, delegated in him by the Government of Mysore under Notification No. HD 221 SST 62 dated 20-8-1963 in exercise of the powers conferred on them by sub-section (2) of S. 40 of the Defence of India Act 1962(Central Act No. 51 of 1962). The order of detention is marked Exhibit '1' in this case. This order was confirmed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on them by clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of R. 30-A, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Reviewing Authority constituted by Notification No. HD 221 SST 62 dated 20-8-1963. This order of confirmation is marked Exhibit '6' is dated 15-3-1965. In ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Pais and Sons and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: (1965)2MysLJ620; [1966]17STC161(Kar)
ORDERHedge, J.1. These are revision petitions under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. They raise an identical question of law for consideration. Therefore, it would be convenient to deal with them together. 2. In application under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1957, the only grounds that the High Court can consider are (1) whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to decide a question of law of (2) whether it has decided a question of law erroneously. So far as questions of fact are concerned, the findings reached by the Tribunal are final and conclusive. It is not open to this Court to go into their correctness. We shall now examine the contentions advanced in these cases bearing in mind the limitations imposed on this Court by the aforementioned section 23. 3. The petitioner in S.T.R.P. No. 15 of 1965 is a 'dealer' in Mangalore. He has obtained a registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Kolagada Chennabasappa Vs. State Government of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant167; AIR1966Mys167
Sadasivayya, J. (1) The petitioner is the same person in all these three petitions. He had been granted by the State Government of Madras, a prospecting licence in respect of 200 acres of land in an area known as the N.E.B. Range, Sandur Hills, Karadikolla Forest Range. This area is situated in Sandur Taluk of Bellary District. (At the time when he obtained the prospecting licence in respect of the 200 acres, Bellary District formed part of the former State of Madras. Subsequently, when the Andhra State Act come into force, this part of the Bellary District became integrated with the former State of Mysore. After the reorganisation of the States, the petitioner obtained from the State of Mysore a mining lease (under an order dated 17-9-1957), in his favouring respect of the said 200 acres. (The blue print of the sketch which the petitioner had attached to his application for a mining lease, has been produced by the Government Pleader and has been marked as Exhibit R-8; this sketch show...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Velji Devashi Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1965
Reported in: (1966)1MysLJ141; [1966]18STC197(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Court deems fit directing the respondent to effect necessary corrections in the order of assessment No. DR/CT/(iii)T. 46 dated 15th May, 1961, in pursuance of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 916 and to refund to him the excess tax collected. 2. Among other things, the petitioner deals in cotton and groundnut seeds. For the period from 24th October, 1957, till 11th November, 1958, his purchase transactions relating to cotton and groundnut seeds were assessed to sales tax under section 5(4) read with Schedule 4 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act. At the time of the assessment, section 7 of the Act read as follows :- 'The tax under this Act shall be levied on any transaction of sale or purchase deemed to take place inside the State under this Act or any other ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.V. Rama Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mys59; 1967CriLJ559
1. The Appellant who was the accused in Kolar Sessions Case No. 6 of 1961, has been convicted of the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment. Hence this appeal.2. The Order of conviction and sentence which is challenged in this appeal by the appellant is made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division (Camp: Kolar), on the re-trial of the accused.3. The conviction of the accused in the previous trial was set aside by this Court and a re-trial was ordered since it took the view that the irregularities committed by the prosecution vitiated the trial and conviction of the accused was held to be bad in law.4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was a clerk in the Kanyakaparameswari Co-operative Society, Ltd., Kolar; in that Society even the non-members could deposit the money and accordingly P. W. 6 Syed Murthuza a non-member deposited Rs. 800 in the said Society; after som...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »