Karnataka Court December 1966 Judgments
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, by Its General Manager Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant1; AIR1968Mys1; ILR1967KAR563; (1967)1MysLJ148
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:'Whether it is competent for the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to grant to a private operator, in respect of a route which overlaps any part of a notified route in an approved scheme, a permit (or renewal of a permit), subject to the condition that he should not pick up or set down passengers on the notified route?'.In order to answer the question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called 'the Act'. Chapter IV-A was added by Act 100 of 1956, to the Act making special provisions for grant of monopoly of road transport service to State Transport Undertakings to the partial or complete exclusion of private operators.Section 68C empowers any State Transport Undertaking to frame a scheme of road transport service to be operated by it. The said section reads:'Where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an effic...
Tag this Judgment!City Tobacco Mart Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR478(KAR); [1967]64ITR478(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ19
Narayana Pai, J.1. In respect of the assessment for the two years 1952-53 and 1953-54, the claim was made by the concern called by City Tobacco Mart, that it was a partnership entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. According to the case, the partnership which was constituted by a written instrument was to consist of five partners, namely : (1) H. Mohamed Khan, (2) Mohurunnisa Begum, (3) N. Mohamed Khan, (4) H. Gaffar Khan, (5) Mirza Habibulla Baig. 2. Out of these, number 2 is the wife of number one, and number 3, the son of number one. Number 4 and 5 were employees under number one. The capital was to be contributed only by the first two in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000 by the former and Rs. 55,500 by the latter. 3. The assessing authority, the Income-tax Officer, refused registration. In the personal assessment of H. Mohamed Khan, he also held that the sum of Rs. 55,500 shown as capital contribution by the wife was in fact not her money, but a co...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Nagappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR988; [1968]67ITR740(KAR); [1968]67ITR740(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ14
Narayana Pai, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment of the income of C. R. Nagappa of Bangalore for the assessment year 1962-63, the facts which from the basis for the questions referred are briefly the following : The assessee, C. R. Nagappa, who owned several immovable properties in Banagalore, executed on 14th April, 1955, seven trust deeds for the benefit of his children, one each for the benefit of his six minor sons, and one for the benefit of his one unmarried daughter. Specific immovable properties were transferred upon trust to four trustees, viz., the two wives, one married daughter of the assessee and the assessee himself. Of these, the assessee was to be the managing trustee. Under the terms of the trust deeds, only a portion of the income arising out of the trust property was to be utilised immediately for the benefit of the beneficiaries and the balance accumulated for their benefit to be handed over to them at...
Tag this Judgment!Devchand C. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: [1970]78ITR534(KAR); [1970]78ITR534(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 25(1) of the Expenditure-tax Act made to this court under the following circumstances : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of one D. C. Shah as the karta and his son, Kiran D. Shah. The other relatives in the family are females, viz., Anasuya Bai, wife of the karta, and three daughters of theirs called Snehalata, Swarnalata, Ujwalalata. The eldest daughter was married on 24th December, 1959. A sum of Rs. 1,00,795 was spent for the marriage. When this amount was taken into computation for the purpose of expenditure-tax, the assessee objected to the inclusion pleading that the expenditure had not been incurred by the Hindu undivided family which is the assessee, but by D. C. Shah and his wife, Anasuya Bai, in their individual capacity out of the cash presents received by them from various persons in connection with the marriage. The receipt of these presents from various persons and the items of expenditure in connect...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dattatraya Gangadhar Samant
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1435
M. Santhosh, J.1. The appellant Dattatray Gangadhar Bamant in Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 196S was the first accused in Special Case No. 5 of 1961 on the tile of the Special Judge, Belgaum. He and the second accused Kashinath Krishna Bapat were charged with having committed offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant (accused -1) was convicted by the learned Special Judge of the offence under Section 161 I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/., in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In Cr. A. 331/65 the appellant questions the correctness and legality of the said conviction and sentence.Accused-2 Kashinath Krishna Bapat has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge of both the charges. Criminal Appeal 4 of 1966 is the appeal filed by the State questioning the correctness of the acquittal of the second accused foe b...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Sudha Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant221; AIR1967Mys221; (1967)1MysLJ326
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The short question that arises for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is whether the petitioner should have been treated as belonging to socially and educationally Backward Class as defined hy Government Order No E. D 76 T G L. 63. dated the 26th July, 1963.2. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to one of the Government Medical Colleges in the State She has passed the Pre-University Course Examination of the Bangalore University. She secured 197 marks in the optional subjects and 35 marks in the interview, that is aggregate marks of 232 She claimed to belong to socially and educationally Backward Class The last selected candidate in the General Pool of the Bangalore University secured 240 marks while the last selected candidate in the reserved seats for socially and educationally Backward Classes, secured 222 marks in the aggregate It is undisputed that tf her claim to belong to such Backward Class Is upheld she is entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!B. Basavannappa Vs. the State of Mysore Through the Chief Secretary to ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant194; AIR1967Mys194; (1968)IILLJ316Kant; (1967)1MysLJ396
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the decree, dated November 10, 1963, made by the Principal District Judge, Shimoga, in Regular Appeal No. 18 of 1963. By that decree, be confirmed the decree made by the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's claim in so far as it related to the period from 6-8-1958 to 6-8-1961. In this appeal, the plaintiff is challenging the correctness of the decree made by the learned District Judge.2. The few facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows:3. The plaintiff claims to be a schoolmaster in the Education Department of the Government of Mysore. He was working as a school-master at Mallenahalli, Shikaripur Taluk. Shimoga District, on a monthly salary of Rs. 34.50 p. plus allowance of Rs. 25 and malnad allowance of Rs. 20. He alleges that the Director of Public Instruction, by his order, dated November 24, 1954, dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal to the Government against the said order, and the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas313(Kar); (1967)1MysLJ80
ORDER1. This application under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, is posted for orders as to its maintainability. 2. The application is by the company which is sought to be wound up on a creditor's petition. The prayer is for grant of permission to the company to mortgage its assets to raise a loan from the State Government for the express purpose of paying arrears of wages and salaries of its employees. 3. The question of maintainability arises or is raised by the office, in the light of the language of the section. 4. Section 536 reads as follows : '(1) In the case of a voluntary winding up, any transfer of shares in the company, not being a transfer made to or with the sanction of the liquidator, and any alteration in the status of the members of the company, made after the commencement of the winding up, shall be void. (2) In the case of a winding up by or subject to the supervision of the court, any disposition of the property (including actionable claims) of the company,...
Tag this Judgment!Antha Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1966
Reported in: 1969CriLJ572
ORDERTukol, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. There was an order in the proceedings instituted by the respondents under Section 488 of Criminal P.C. for payment of Rs. 50 per month to the respondents for their maintenance. The order is dated 23.11.1965. Respondent No. 1 then filed an application on January 25, 1966 for recovery of the arrears of maintenance due to her and her minor children. The present petitioner appeared through his Lawyer who filed a written statement contending that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 100 which was insufficient even for his own maintenance and that he was prepared to maintain the petitioners if they chose to live with him in Bombay.The petitioners stated expressly in their application in the Court below that the husband had no movable or immovable property of his own. The wife who was examined also stated to the same effect and there was no allegation or suggestion in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Soams Vs. Commonwealth Hosiery Factory, Balmatta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1966
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR434]; (1968)IILLJ438Kant; (1967)1MysLJ453
Per Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The source of this petition is a dispute between the Common-wealth Hosiery Factory in Mangalore, and its workmen, which was referred for adjudication to additional industrial tribunal, Bangalore, under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After the receipt of this reference, the tribunal issued notices on 24 March, 1964, to two unions, the South Kanara General Labour Union, which will be referred to as the existing union in the course of this order, and the Karnataka Handloom and General Workers' Union, which will be referred to as the new union. 2. It is not disputed before us that the existing union was the older union and that the new union was formed later. 3. By the notices issued by the tribunal to these two unions, it was intimated that the office-bearers of these unions should appear before the tribunal on 5 April, 1964, so that issues might be settled. The management was also informed that it should produce its counter-statement. 4. Meanwhile, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »