Karnataka Court October 1966 Judgments
Mandanna A.M. Vs. Director of Medical Services
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1966
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR21]; (1967)IILLJ149Kant; (1966)2MysLJ705
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was a X-ray technician in the Civil Hospital Somwarpet. In a disciplinary proceeding, the first charge against him was that he was found in the dark room of the X-ray department inside the hospital premises on March 29, 1963 with a woman 'in an unbecoming position.' The second charge was that there was dereliction of duty of his part. These two charges were formulated on June 24, 1963.2. At an earlier stage, the petitioner was asked to supply answers to three questions with reference to what was described as a chargesheet. The first was whether it was a fact that the petitioner was with a woman in the X-ray room and the petitioner admitted it. The second was whether that woman was a patient and had been referred to the petitioner by someone, and the answer was in the negative. The third asked the petitioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, and he said this :'It is true that I was with a lady in the X-ray room for whi...
Tag this Judgment!The Town Panchayat Committee Vs. Sikandar Sahib HussaIn Saheb and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant201; AIR1967Mys201; (1967)1MysLJ133
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The Town Panchayat Committee of Kittur, in the district of Belgaum passed a resolution on November 6, 1960, deciding to levy octroi on petroleum and diesel products brought into the limits of the panchayat. Objections were invited to the proposed levy and on November 19, 1960, some of the inhabitants of the panchayat areaproduced their objections against the proposed levy. It is stated that the panchayat thereupon decided to levy octroi from November 1, 1961, as originally proposed by it.2. Respondent 1 in this writ petition, who owns a petroleum pump in Kittur as the agent of the Burmah Shell, made a representation to the concerned Assistant Commissioner against the levy of octroi on petroleum and diesel products brought for his pump into the area of the panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner did not uphold that contention and so, the petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner who declared the levy to be illegal, since, in his opinion, the necessary bye-laws...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Narayanaswami and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1966
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ106Kant
Per Bhimayya, J. 1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore, in Application No. 16 of 1964 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under S. 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, to be hereinafter called the Act, for the recovery of employees' contribution payable by the respondent-factory. 2. The application was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its manager against the respondent-factory to recover a sum of Rs. 8,893 for the period commencing from 27 July 1958 to 31 January, 1964, being the employees' contribution payable by the principal employer, viz., respondent-factory, for the benefits of the workers employed by the immediate employers. 3. The respondent is a partnership-firm constituted by two brothers by name Laxmanamurthi and Srinivasamurthi. The respondent-factory manufactures and exports polished granite memorial stones. The factory is situate at the south-end area, Ba...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. B.M. Lakshmanamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant196; AIR1967Mys196; [1967(14)FLR322]; (1967)1MysLJ318
Bhimiah, J.1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore, in Application No. 16 of 1964 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948. to be hereinafter called the 'Act', for the recovery of employees' contribution payable by the respondent-factory2. The application was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Manager against the respondent-factory to recover a sum of Rs. 8,893 for the period commencing from 27-7 1958 to 31-1-1964, being the employees' contribution payable by theprincipal employer, viz., respondent-factory, for the benefit of the workers employed by the Immediate employers.3. The respondent is a partnership firm constituted by two brothers by name Laxmanamurthy and Srinivasamurthy. The respondent-factory manufactures and exports polished granite memorial stones. The factory is situate at the South End area, Basavangudi, Ban...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lingappa Vs. Joint Registrar of Industrial Co-operatives Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas392(Kar); (1967)1MysLJ109
Somnath Iyer, J.1. We are concerned in this writ petition with the validity of the constitution of the board of management for the administration of the Shim go District Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Which we shall refer to as the bank, by the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce and Ex-Officio Joint Registrar of Industrial Co-operatives, by an order made by hi on May 18,1966. Under bye-law No. 22 of the bank, the first board of management was constituted by the Joint Registrar, on September 25, 1964. The board was composed of fifteen persons amongst whom the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce, Shim go, were two. There were seven presidents of various industrial co-operative Societies. There were four others who were occupying other offices. Bye-law No. 22 which began to operate when the bank was registered under section 7 reads: 'Nor with standing anything contained in the foregoing bye-law, the first board of Directors including the President shall be nominated by...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Ramiah Setty and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR146(KAR); [1967]65ITR146(Karn); (1967)1MysLJ215
1. By this application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee requires the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 5394 of 1963-64 dated June 5, 1964. As, in our view, a question of law does arise out of the said order of the Tribunal, we state a case and refer the question to the High Court. There is a delay of three days in filing this application. We are satisfied with the explanation for the delay, viz., that the late sending of the application by the assessee was due to his assumption that there will not be any delay in transit. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application. 2. The assessee is a firm of four partners constituted under a partnership deed dated March 26, 1960. The assessee carries on several businesses including business in contracts. By an application dated March 31, 1960, the assesses firm applied for registration for the assessment year 1960-61 under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and by another application dated June 30, 1961, it ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sannappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR27(KAR); [1967]66ITR27(Karn); (1967)1MysLJ64
1. This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' was made at the instance of the assessee. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1961-62 ?' 2. The assesses firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated November 14, 1955. It consists of three partners, namely, R. S. Satyanarayanappa, R. S. Chandrasekharappa and R. S. Venugopal. It is provided in the partnership deed that the profits earned by the firm shall be distributed in the following manner : (1) Reserve fund, one anna in a rupee. (2) Satyanarayanappa, six annas in a rupee. (3) Chandrasekharappa, six annas in a rupee. (4) Venugopal, three annas in a rupee. 3. The deed is silent as to the manner of distribution of losses among the partners. The firm was granted regi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nanjundiah Setty and ors. Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant38; AIR1968Mys38; (1967)1MysLJ87
ORDER(1) These petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the common order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore under Section 413 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act,1949 (hereinafter called the Act). When they came up for admission before Govinda Bhat J., his Lordship felt that the question of their maintainability should first be decided and accordingly ordered a notice to be issued to the respondent. The question of maintainability depends upon whether the impugned order was passed by the District Court or by the District Judge as persona designata.(2) The petitioners who are occupants of different shops belonging to the respondent Corporation were served with notices demanding monthly fee of Rs. 80 from two petitioners occupying corner shops with Rs. 75 per month from the rest. These demands were made with effect from 1-6-1962. They filed various petitions (Miscellaneous Cases Nos.148to169of1963 and164of1964) under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Kangan and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore Represented by the Chief ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant133; AIR1967Mys133; (1966)2MysLJ739
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In this Writ Petition thirteen persons whose lands were proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act call in question the acquisition proceedings which commenced with a preliminary notification published in the Mysore Gazette on June 23, 1960. There was an enquiry made under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, and that that enquiry was made, is established beyond doubt, although the petitioners contend that that enquiry was not made. From the record made available to us by Mr. Doddakalegowda, the learned Government Pleader, it transpires that the Deputy Commissioner did make the enquiry pursuant to which he made to the State Government two reports. The first he made on February 4, 1961 and the second on February 2, 1962. The real report under Section 5A is the report submitted on February 2, 1962. In the earlier report which he made on February 4, 1961 he did not make any recommendation on the objections of the petitioners but merely p...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR23(KAR); [1968]67ITR23(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The said reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, at the instance of the assessee. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 26,713 was properly disallowed as a capital expenditure ?' 2. The assessee, the Mysore Kirloskar Limited, is a company manufacturing machine tools, workshop equipment, etc. 3. For manufacturing Capstan and Turret lathes of particular designs, the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. Alfred Herbert Ltd., on August 1, 1958. The agreement was to last for a period of 15 years. Under clause 3 of the agreement, Herbert was to provide the assessee with manufacturing technique from time to time and also furnish two complete sets of detailed and general arrangements, drawings, material specifica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »