Karnataka Court March 1966 Judgments
Ganeshmul Channilal Gandhi and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant89; AIR1968Mys89
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) These two Writ Petitions arise out of proceedings commenced under the Customs Act, 1962 (Central Act 52 of 1962).(2) On February 21, 1963, a Central Excise Officer seized from the two petitions 49 pieces of gold at the H. A. L. Airport on their arrival from Bombay to Bangalore. he seized from Ganeshmul Chunnilal Gandhi who is the petitioner in W. P. 58 of 1965, 34 pieces weighing 3.772 Kgs. and from Manikchand who is the petitioner in W. P. 59 of 1964, 15 pieces of gold weighing 3.863 Kgs. This seizure we made under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act which will be referred to as 'The Act' and it is stated that the seizure was made as there was reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Act.(3) Under Section 110(2) the goods seized under sub-section (1) of that section should be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized if no notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 was issued to him within six months of the seizure of the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Doreswamy Iyengar Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant129; AIR1967Mys129; (1966)1MysLJ756
ORDER1. The petitioner before us is one of the inamdars of the village somedyapanahalli in the District of Bangalore, which vested in the Government under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous). Inams Abolition Act, 1955, in the year 1958. This Writ Petition is presented on behalf of the petitioner in his own right and an also as power of attorney holder of the other inamdars.2. We are asked to quash the order made by the Deputy Commissioner functioning under the Act, made on February 14, 1963 directing the special Amildar, Magadi, to hold a 're-inquiry into the claims of the petitioner and his co-sharers for being registered as occupants under Section 9, and also into the rival claims of respondents 3 to 68. We are also asked to issue a mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to complete the enquiry expeditiously on the basis of the first report submitted by the Special Tahsildar and to issue a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to collect the arrears of rent due to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Gurushiddawwa Virasangayya Shivappanamath and ors. Vs. the State of My ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant127; AIR1968Mys127
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) At the instance of the Hubli Municipal Borough which has now become the Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation, a preliminary notification was made by the Government of the new State of Mysore on March 14, 1960 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894) stating that 21 lands in the village of Unkal in the District of Dharwar were likely to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for a timber depot. A declaration under S. 6 that the lands were required for a public purpose was made on September 11, 1963.(2) The three petitioners before us who are the owners of one of the lands proposed to be acquired bearing resurvey No. 37 measuring 3 acres and 8 guntas question these proceedings and ask us to quash the preliminary notification under S. 4 and the declaration under S. 6. The grounds on which this challenge is made are these:(a) that the acquisition was not made for a public purpose; (b) that the Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation, which will be re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadra Coffee Estate Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR114(KAR); [1967]64ITR114(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ608
1. In this reference made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under section 55 (2) of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (Mysore Act XXII of 1957), at the instance of the assessee, there are three questions of law before us. 2. The reference was made in the following circumstances : 3. The financial year in respect of which the assessment was made by the Agricultural Income-tax officer was the year 1957-58 and the corresponding previous year was the period commencing on June 1, 1956, and ending on May 31, 1957. The agricultural Income-tax Officer made an assessment under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Mysore Act IV of 1955) which will be referred to as the old Act. 4. Section 3 of the 1957 Act which will be referred to as the new Act, is the charging section, and the charge under that section is on agricultural income in respect of every financial year commenting from the first April, 1957, 'Financial year' is defined by section 2 (1) (k), which read...
Tag this Judgment!Chikmagalur Public Conveyance Motor Service Vs. Industrial Tribunal an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ272Kant; (1966)1MysLJ692
ORDERPer Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. In this writ petition, we are asked to say that there was wrongful refusal of approval for dismissal under S. 33(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Respondent 2 is a workman and the petitioner is the employer. There was a domestic enquiry against the workman in respect of four charges. The first was that there was an act of overloading; the second was that respondent 2 had not equipped himself with ticket-books; the third was that he tampered with the ticket-books and the fourth was that he similarly tampered with the gate-pass. The finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was that all these four charges were established. 2. But the industrial tribunal, whose approval was sought under S. 33(2) to the order of dismissal made by the employer, was of the view that one of the four charges was not established. It was further of the view that since there was no standing order which made it obligatory on the part of the workman to equip himself with the ticket-boo...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Singh (H.R.) Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ269Kant; (1966)1MysLJ653
ORDERPer Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. This writ petition has for its source an application made by the petitioner to the labour court under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner was an employee in the Southern Railway, Hubli, from 4 March, 1957. His services were dispensed with on 21 November, 1958, and, according to the allegations in the applications presented by the petitioner, the termination of his employment in that way contravened the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. So the petitioner asked the labour court to direct the employer to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,905.50. This amount consisted of the pay and dearness allowance which the petitioner claimed for the period between 21 November, 1958 and June, 1961, and a sum of Rs. 232.50 which was described as compensation for three years. In the amount claimed by the petitioner, he also included a sum of Rs. 155 which was described as one month's pay, dearness allowance and house-rent. 2. The employer denied ...
Tag this Judgment!H.R. Dharma Singh Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hub ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant131; AIR1967Mys131; [1966(12)FLR450]
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has for its source an application made by the petitioner to the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner was an employee in the Southern Railway, Hubli from March 4, 1957. His services were dispensed with on November 21, 1958, and, according to the allegations in the application presented by the Petitioner, the termination of his employment in that way contravened the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. So the petitioner asked the Labour Court to direct the employer to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,905.50. This amount consisted of the pay and dearness allowance which the petitioner claimed for the period between November 21, 1958 and June 1961, and a sum of Rs. 232.50 which was described as compensation for three years. In the amount claimed by the Petitioner, he also included a sum of Rs. 155 which was described as one month's pay, dearness allowance and house rent.2. The employer denied that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Chikmagalur Public Conveyance Motor Service, Chikmagalur Vs. Industria ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant145; AIR1967Mys145
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In this writ petition we are asked to say that there was wrongful refusal of approval for dismissal under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent 2 is a workman and the petitioner is the employer. There was a domestic enquiry against the workman in respect of four charges. The first was that there was an act of overloading; the second was that respondent 2 had not equipped himself with ticket hooks; the third was that he tampered with the ticket books and the fourth was that he similarly tampered with the gate pass. The finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was that all these four charges were established.2. But the Industrial Tribunal whose approval was sought under Section 33(2) to the order of dismissal made by the employer, was of the view that one of the four charges was not established. It was further of the view that since there was no standing order which made it obligatory on the part of the workman to equip himself with the ticket book,...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Shive Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR92(KAR); [1967]63ITR92(Karn); (1966)1MysLJ488
Sadasivayya, J. 1. These are three revision petitions field under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the three assessees, against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The common question of law raised in all these three revision petitions is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal having accepted that the accounts of the assessee have been maintained on the cash basis system, was justified in law in reducing the allowable expenditure. 2. In each of these three cases, the agricultural crop concerned was coffee crop and the accounting year was the one ending on March 31, 1958. (The method of accounting employed by the assessees was the cash basis method). As against the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer each of the assessees had preferred appeals to the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The contentions which had been raised before th...
Tag this Judgment!Visalakshi Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Circle Ii, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR150(KAR); [1968]67ITR150(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In these matters, we are asked to pronounce on the validity of paragraph 4 of the Compulsory Deposit (Income-tax Payers) Scheme, 1963, made by the Central GOvernment in exercise of the power conferred by section 5 of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme Act, 1963 (Act No. XXI of 1963). 2. The question arises thus : he Compulsory Deposit Scheme Act, 1963 (Act No. XXI of 1963), which was a law made by Parliament, came into force on June 1, 1963. Section 2 of that Act provided that it shall apply to the categories of persons enumerated in it including persons liable to payment of tax under the Income-tax Act, to whom clause (b) of that section referred. The purpose of the Act was to compel deposits by person by whom additional surcharge was payable in respect of any assessment year, made a deposit under the Act, he would be entitled to a deduction from the additional surcharge of a sum which was either equal to the sum deposited or a certain proportion of his residual in come...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »