Karnataka Court September 1966 Judgments
M.G. Sirsikar Vs. State of Mysore Represented by the Chief Secretary t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant136; AIR1967Mys136
Somnath Iyer, J.1. There was a police firing on June 7, 1958 in Bhatkal in the District of North Kanara. The petitioner before us was then the Extra Aval Karkun and Executive Taluka Magistrate, and, he gave the order for firing. In consequence, disciplinary proceedings were started against him in which he faced as many as seven charges. The accusation against him was that, without acquainting himself with the true position, he gave an irresponsible order to fire.2. In consequence, on July 12, 1958 he was placed under suspension and the suspension was however terminated by an order made by the Government on August 17, 1959, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings came to an end on June 15, 1962 when Government made an order completely exonerating the petitioner in respect of all the charges which had been brought against him. The relevant part of the order of exoneration reads:--'After consideration of the records and the report of the Enquiry O...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatasubba Reddy Vs. Inspector-general of Police, Mysore, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Kant67; AIR1968Mys67
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The petitioner before us was a police constable in the District of Kolar and there was a disciplinary proceeding commenced against him on a charge of indecent behaviour and misconduct towards a married young lady on December 16, 1961. The enquiry into the charge was made by an Inspector of Police who gave him the person hearing enjoined by paragraph 159 of the Mysore Police Manual, Volume 1, the provisions of which, as pointed out by this Court in Nanjundiah v. Inspector General of Police 1964 Mys LJ (supp) 659, governed the police force, to the exclusion of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the report made by the enquiring authority who was an Inspector of Police imposed a punishment reducing the pay of petitioner from Rs. 66/- to Rs. 65/- for a period of four years from April 1, 1963 so as to affect future increments. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. K. Krishna Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR385(KAR); [1967]64ITR385(Karn); (1967)1MysLJ46
Hegde, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It was made on the direction given by this court in C. P. No. 258 of 1962 on the file of this court. The reference in question was called for at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Mysore, at Bangalore. The question referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts a1d circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 48,749 is not properly assessable to income-tax ?' 2. The material facts are these : One Krishna Rao and his brother-in-law, Babu Rao, entered into a partnership on June 13, 1936, for running the hotel, Udipi Sri Krishna Bhavan at Mangalore. The hotel in question was run for a number of years. The partnership in question was registered under section 26A of the 'Act'. It came to be dissolved by agreement on March 31, 1952. During the continuance of the partnership, the firm had claimed and obtained depreciation allowance...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. B.V.R. Gupta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas633(Kar); (1967)1MysLJ563
1. Respondent's father, Venkatappa Setty, had insured his life with the Mysore Government Insurance Department for Rs. 5,750/- under a policy which was issued to him on 25th May, 1955. He dies on 27th day of July,1955, whereafter, his son, the respondent, made a claim for payment of the money. The insurance department of the Government repudiated the liability on the ground that the policy had become void by reason of certain wilfully false statements made by his father in the course of the papers leading up to the issue of the insurance policy. Thereafter, after issuing necessary notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, to enforce payment of the money due under the policy. The suit was defended by the Life Insurance Corporation of India who by then had taken over the life insurance business till then being carried on by the department of the State Government. 2. The principal or the only matter in res...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. M.M. Thimmaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR180(KAR); [1968]67ITR180(Karn)
Hegde, J.1 . The assessee is a partner in three firms : (i) M. M. Madalappa & Bros., Bangalore, (ii) T. M. Muniswamiappa & Sons, Bangalore, (iii) M. M. Madalappa and A. C. Balasubramania Mudaliar & Co. 2. The assessment for the three years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61 were completed by the Income-tax Officer on January 19, 1959, November 30, 1959, and November 29, 1961, under section 23(3) accepting the assessee's share income from the above firms as returned by the assessee. It was noted in the assessment orders that the share incomes were being accepted subject to rectification later. In the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee's share in M. M. Madalappa & Bros. was a loss and was not taken into account in the original assessment. In 1959-60, neither income nor loss was taken into account. In the assessment year 1960-61, a loss of Rs. 4,941 from this firm was deducted. Against the share income from the other two firms, in the assessment for 1958-59, it was noted 'tax earned'. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraj Setty (S.) Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1967(15)FLR114]; (1967)IILLJ143Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was a first division clerk in the Department of Industries and Commerce in the former State of Mysore, in which, in the year 1941, a separate Department of Labour was constituted. By an order made by the State Government on October 17, 1949, the proposal of the Commissioner of Labour in that separated Labour Department that the petitioner and another should be absorbed as stenographers in that department was sanctioned. The petitioner continued as such stenographer until he was confirmed as such on October 27, 1956, although the confirmation was made retrospective with effect from 17 October 1949.2. But when the petitioner was working as a stenographer in the Labour Department, which was part of the Department of Industries and Commerce, quite a few persons who were junior to him and who held the post of a first division clerk, were promoted as Assistant Commissioners of Labour. The petitioner then made representations against this supersession but wa...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi Vs. Director of Public Instruction and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ151Kant; (1966)2MysLJ619
Per Somnath Ayyar, J.1. Srimati Meenakshi was appointed temporarily as a headmistress in the taluk development board girls' high school, Mudigere, on July 9, 1963. This appointment was made by the concerned taluk development board. On January 28, 1964 she was instructed by the chief executive officer of the taluk development board to hand over charge of the institution to Sri Y. M. Mahabala Rao. The memorandum issued to Smt. Meenakshi stated that Sri Y. M. Mahabala Rao had been newly posted as headmaster in accordance with the memorandum issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction of January 14, 1964. Srimati Meenakshi is the petitioner and Sri Mahabala Rao is respondent 3. The petitioner asks us in this writ petition to quash the order by which her services were terminated, and, the main ground on which we are asked to do so if that the appointing authority for the post of a headmaster in a taluk board high school is the taluk board, and not the Director of Public Instruction ...
Tag this Judgment!Y.V. Srinivasamurthy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR292(KAR); [1967]64ITR292(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'. 2. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 85,907 under section 10(2) (vii) or under section 10(2) (xv) and of the sum of Rs. 2,203 under section 10(2) (vi) ?' 3. The facts material for the purpose of answering the question referred to us earlier are these : 4. The assesses carries on business as an exhibitor of films at Bangalore. He is the owner of 3 theatres, one of which is 'Super Talkies'. In this case, we are concerned with that theatre. Rangaiah, the brother of the assesses, took on lease site No. 11, Belimut Road, Bangalore City, on 31st August, 1939. At that time, it was a vacant site. The aforementioned theatre was constructed on that site. The lease in question was a building lease. The lease is for a period of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Mizar Krishna Annappa Pai and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Myso ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR830(KAR); [1968]69ITR830(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question of law reference for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether there was material for the Tribunal to apply the proviso to section 13 and to add the sum of Rs. 1,07,000 as income in the manner it has done ?'. 2. The facts of the case are set out in the statement of the case. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had rejected the books maintained by the assessee. They have given some reasons for not relying on the account books maintained by the assessee. In his appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee challenged the finding given by the Income-tax Officer as also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the effect that here are grounds for rejecting the accounts maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal being a final fact-finding body was required to consider whether the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Roopchand Seshmull
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: ILR1967KAR446; [1968]69ITR868(KAR); [1968]69ITR868(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ31
1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that registration should be granted to the firm.' 3. The facts material for the purpose of this case may be stated thus : One Seshmull was the son of Roopchand; they were the only two members of their family; the father and the son got divided some time prior to November 15, 1936; on November 16, 1936, they entered into a partnership to carry on the very business that their family was carrying on earlier; Seshmull died on September 15, 1955, leaving behind him his widow Anoop Kunwar; he had no children; Roopchand died on November 29, 1955, leaving behind him his widow, Gattu Bai; after the death of Roopchand, Gattu Bai and Anoop Kunwar entered into a partnership; that firm was registered under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »