Karnataka Court August 1966 Judgments
Mysore Sugar Company Employees' Union Vs. Commissioner of Labour (Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ491Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. We are concerned in this writ petition with a settlement reached between an employer called the Mysore Sugar Company which is respondent 2 before us and to which we shall refer as the company, and an employees' association known as the Mysore Sugar Company Employees' Association which is respondent 3 and which will be called the association, on 22 July, 1966. This settlement is called in question by the petitioner which is another employees' union known as the Mysore Sugar Company Employees' Union to which we shall refer as the union. 2. The impugned settlement was reached between the association and the company in the presence of the State Conciliation Officer who was also the Commissioner of Labour. The settlement was the sequel to a proposal by the company which was announced on 22 June, 1966 to begin a lay-off with effect from 1 July, 1966. That announcement explained that the lay-off became necessary by pressure of external circumstances including the inabilit...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Kulkarni and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant225; AIR1967Mys225
ORDER1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions were holding the substantive post of a police constable in the State of Bombay. But they were officiating until October 26, 1956 as wireless operators in that State. R.R. Kulkarni who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 347 of 1964 was appointed to so officiate on September 4, 1956; V.S. Bhandari, the petitioner in W. P. 348 of 1964, was so appointed on April 18, 1966 and joined duty on July 16, 1956; and V.L Mirajkar, the petitioner in WP. 2538 of 1965 was so appointed on July 12, 1956. But by an order made by the Superintendent of Police (Wireless) of the Bombay State in Poona, these three persons were reverted as police Constables.2. On October 31, 1956, under Section 115(2) of the States Reorganization Act the Central Government allotted all those persona who. immediately before they were allotted, were civil servants in the State of Bombay in the four districts which became part of the new State of Mysore, to the service of the new S...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Magavi, Haveri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR409(KAR); [1967]64ITR409(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In this reference sought by the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the first question before us is, whether in a proceeding commenced by a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which will be referred to as the 'old Act'), a penalty can be imposed under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which will be called the 'new Act'). The second question is whether in an appeal before it the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has the discretion to say that no penalty 'should be levied at all' under section 271(1)(a) of the new Act. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated : 3. The assessee is an individual, and the assessment years are 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. There was an imposition of penalty by the Income-tax Officer both under section 271(1)(a) and section 271(1)(b) of the new Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner overturned the imposition made by the Income-tax Officer and there were six appeals preferred by the dep...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Mysore Vs. B. Shamim Shetty Brothers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR328(KAR); [1967]66ITR328(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In this reference sought by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the question before us is whether two sets of income derived during the same accounting year by firms which purported to be distinct firms, could be added to one another for the purpose of assessment. 2. The assessment year was 1958-59. There was a partnership which was first constituted under an instrument of partnership on May 7, 1951. There were three partners and one of them retired from the partnership on July 31, 1957. According to the statement of the case submitted to us by the Appellate Tribunal, the remaining two partners 'formed a partnership' under an instrument of partnership executed on August 1, 1957. What the Income-tax Officer did was to add to the income of the period antecedent to August 1, 1957, the subsequent income, and to make an assessment in respect of the aggregate income. This the Income-tax Officer did on the postulate that what happ...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary Vidhana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant61; AIR1968Mys61; ILR1967KAR64
Sadasivayya, J.(1) These writ petitions are directed against the validity of Part VI of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Part VI pertains to hotels and lodging-houses. It provides for the fixation of fair rates for board, lodging and other services given in hotels or lodging-houses; there are also provisions regulating the eviction of lodgers. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 800 of 1964 is the proprietor of a lodging cum-boarding-house in Bangalore, doing business under the name and style of Bombay Ananda Bhavan. The petitioner in W. P. No. 971 of 1966 is the Proprietor of a hotel called Shilton's hotel, which provides facilities for the lodging of 65 persons and for their boarding. The petitioner in W. P. No. 972 of 1966 is a partner of a hotel called Lobo's hotel which provides facilities for the lodging and boarding of 38 persons. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners pray for a declaration that the provisions of Part VI of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Shivanappa Yalgurdappa Desai Vs. Sundarabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant255; AIR1967Mys255; (1966)2MysLJ531
Somnath Iyer, J.1. While the Assistant Commissioner made a re-grant to the petitioner in these seven Writ Petitions, the Deputy Commissioner made the re-grant to the contesting respondents But in the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Commissioner the order of the Deputy Commissioner was modified and there was a direction that the name of the contesting respondents should be continued in the Record of Rights as occupants of ordinary raiyatwari lands. There was also a direction that the name of the petitioner in the 'other rights' column in that record should he deleted. The occupancy price paid by both the parties was directed to be refunded.2. From this decision of the Divisional Commissioner, there were revision petitions to the Tribunal by the petitioner The Revenue Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contesting respondents were holders of the walan and that they were therefore entitled to a re-graut3. It is obvious that since the contesting responde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›