Karnataka Court October 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B.K. Shantiraj Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: [1968]68ITR166(KAR); [1968]68ITR166(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ129
Hegde, J. 1. The estate duty assessment pertains to the estate of lat Chandraraja Savantha Madda Hegde, who did on 29th June, 1955. Shir B. K. Shantiraj, son of the deceased, furnished to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Banglore, who was the assessing authority, an account of property passing on the death of the deceased. 2. The deceased's assets, amongst others, consisted of agricultural lands which were situated in Udipi and Mangalore taluks of South Canara which were all leased to tenants. The accountable person showed the value of these lands in the estate duty return at Rs. 1,71,390. The Assistant Controller considered that the lands were grossly under-valued. The accountable person contended that some lands in those areas were sold for lower prices. The Assistant Controller, however, rejected the accountable person's contention as the extent of the lands sold and their yield was not furnished by him and also as the sales were effected in 1959, i.e., nearly four years aft...
Hemavathiamma Vs. Kumaravelu Mudaliar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant111; AIR1968Mys111; ILR1967KAR188; (1967)1MysLJ35
(1) This appeal under Section 175 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, hereinafter called the Act, raises a question of some nicety on which there is no precedent of this court or of the Supreme Court it arises in this way:--(2) The appellant is the wife of the respondent and they will be referred to as the wife and the husband respectively. The husband having neglected to support the wife, the latter sued for maintenance and obtained a decree directing payment of periodical maintenance at Rs. 15 a month. From his subsequent conduct, it appears that the husband was not disposed to comply with the decree, though he was earning and had the means to support the wife. When the wife sought to execute the decree by arrest and detention in Civil Prison, the husband contended that he had no means to pay which contention, however, was rejected by the Civil Judge, Bangalore. in R A 173/56. Thereupon, the husband filed a petition for adjudging him as insolvent alleging that he was indebted to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR273(KAR); [1968]67ITR273(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ23
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', at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, having regard to clause (e) of the proviso to section 24 (2), the assessee, an unregistered firm, was entitled to carry forward the whole of the loss including the share of the loss of the two retiring partners ?' 2. The question of law arising for decision in this case, we were told, is not covered by any decision either of the Supreme Court or any of the High Courts. 3. The assessee is an unregistered firm by name 'The Bharat Engineering and Construction Company, Udipi'. It carries on business as engineering contractors. The firm in question was constituted as per the partnership deed dated 25th September, 1950. During the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59, it incurred losses. The losses so incurred amounted to Rs. 1,4...
Somasundara Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1966
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ335Kant; (1966)2MysLJ623
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner who was a junior assistant in the Traffic section of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was served with a communication dated 28 April 1965 by the Deputy General Manager in which it was stated that his services were terminated with effect from 6 March 1965 'as per provisions of the standing orders.' The Deputy General Manager gave no reason for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated. He did not specify the particular standing order under which services were liable to be terminated. It is however clear from the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18/19 March 1965 that there was an allegation of misconduct which fell under Sub-clause (8) of Clause IX(b) of the standing orders, and according to that clause it would be misconduct on the part of an employee if he was absent without leave or habitually overstayed without obtaining leave.2. But the Deputy General Manager did not say in the cour...
Laxmibai Vs. Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant82; AIR1968Mys82; (1967)1MysLJ27
ORDER(1) This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order made by the First Additional Munsif, Belgaum, in Regular C. S. No. 168 of 1963 wherein he recorded findings on first two issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. He held that the Court had the necessary competence and jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it is the correctness of this finding that is being challenged in this petition by the first defendant.(2) The facts which are necessary for the purpose of this case may shortly be stated as follows: One Vasudeo was the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. In pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and his uncle Vasudeo, the suit properties were given to Vasudeo's possession for his maintenance and enjoyment during his lifetime only. He had no right to make any disposition of the property beyond his lifetime. Vasudeo died in the year 1962. Before his death, he mortgaged two lands, revision survey No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›