Karnataka Court January 1967 Judgments
Ramakrishnayya Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Kant247; AIR1967Mys247; (1967)2MysLJ464
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,000 as damages for breach of contract was dismissed by the Civil Judge on the ground that it was a time barred sult. It is undisputed that the cause of action for the suit arose on August 3, 1948, and that the suit was instituted in the Court below only on November 23, 1969. So, if nothing else could be said about it, the suit instituted more than three years after the cause of action arose was clearly barred by limitation, not having been brought within the period of three years prescribed by Article 116 of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act, 19082. The contention of the plaintiff was that the suit was saved by Section 14 of the Limitation Act since between 1950 and 1959 the plaintiff was prosecuting with due diligence another suit in the High Court of Bombay on the original side for identical relief. It was stated that that suit in the High Court of Bombay was withdrawn on November 1, 191...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Rao and ors. Vs. Laxman Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mys16; 1968CriLJ71; (1967)1MysLJ256
ORDER(1) In this petition, the complaint made against the order of the First Class Magistrate, Koppal, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that it suffers, among others, from the following infirmities: 1) That exhibits P-2 to P-16, which are the affidavits filed on behalf of the second party, have not been considered by the Magistrate; 2) that there is no finding that there was a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and public tranquillity; 3) that the Magistrate refused to summon some of the witnesses whom both party No. 1 and part No. 2 wanted to examine or cross-examine; and since the order suffers from these infirmities, it is urged that it is liable to be set aside. (2) Mr. Muralidhara Rao, appearing for the respondents (members of the first party), submits that the order made by the Magistrate is an elaborate order in which he has considered the documentary evidence produced by both the parties, and that though there is some infirmity in the order, ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Venkatesh Pai Vs. Devappa Ayyu Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant188; AIR1968Mys188; ILR1967KAR1033; (1967)1MysLJ236
(1) This appeal is directed against the order of the Court of the District Judge, North Kanara, rejecting the application made under Rule 19 of Order 41 of the Code for re-admission of Civil Appeal No. 195/57 dismissed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 of Order 41 on 19-6-1961, when Sri. M. R. Kamath, Pleader, reported no instructions, In his application, the appellant stated that he had engaged Sri M. R. Kamath to argue the appeal, but the said Pleader without intimation or notice reported want of instructions and that he came to know of the dismissal of the appeal only on 20-11-1961 when the Pleader for the opposite Party in the trial court asked him whether he would pay the costs or execution should be issued. The application was opposed by the respondent No. 3 only. The appellant also made an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in making the application for restoration. He averred that he came to know of the dismissal of the appeal only on 28-11-1...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Thimmarayapopa Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant296; AIR1968Mys296
ORDER(1) This writ Petition is directed against a departmental enquiry that is being held against the petitioner, who at the relevant time was an Assistant Controller of Civil Supplies, Bangalore. The petitioner has sought for the relief of a Writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the charges framed by the second respondent (The Deputy Director of Vigilance, State Vigilance commission, Bangalore), in his Memo No. ENJ 13/65-66 dated 26-5-1966 and the Government Order No. Clause 138 GCS 64 dated 26-10-1965 and another Government Order dated 11-3-1966 bearing No. cl 23 AC 1 65. The copies of the said documents have been produced by the petitioner as Annexures 'D', 'B' and 'A' respectively to the petition. He has further prayed for a writ or order in the nature of 'prohibition', prohibiting the second respondent from holding any further Departmental proceedings pursuant to the Government Order dated 26-10-1965. He has also prayed for a declaration that Rule 11(2) of the Mys...
Tag this Judgment!P.F. Pinto Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR123(KAR); [1967]65ITR123(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, at the instance of the assessee, P. F. Pinto. It relates to or arises out of his assessment to wealth-tax for the very first assessment year 1957-58 after the coming into force of the Act. The relevant valuation date is March 31, 1957. 2. In his return of his wealth for purpose of taxation, the assessee claimed the status of a Hindu undivided family and signed the return in his capacity as karta of the said family. Prior to the coming into force of the Wealth-tax Act, it appears that the assessee was being assessed as an individual under the Indian Income-tax Act. The original assessing authority, the Wealth-tax Officer, Mysore, rejected his claimed. An appeal by him to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal failed. Thereafter, at his instance, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Azeem Vs. Fahimunnisa Begum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Kant226; AIR1969Mys226
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a Muslim wife under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, for the dissolution of her marriage, on the ground that her husband who was impotent at the time of the marriage continued to be so. The spouses were married on June 12, 1960 and the suit for dissolution was brought on October 3, 1960. The husband was at the time of the marriage 20 years and the wife 18.2. The District Judge of Gulbarga recorded a finding on July 31, 1962 that the impotence of the husband was clearly established. But, since the husband had made an application on July 25, 1962 for an opportunity to satisfy the court within a period of one year that he had ceased to be impotent, the District Judge made an order adjourning the proceedings by one year to enable the husband to prove that he had ceased to be impotent.3. On the expiry of the period of one year for which period the suit was adjourned, the wife made an application on August 19, 1963 ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Narayana Rao Nerlekar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR19(KAR); [1967]65ITR19(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J.1. This is a reference under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, made by the Bombay Bench 'B' of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee. The assessee, since deceased, one N. B. Nerlekar, had owned several properties which were his self-acquired property. On 30th August, 1961, he executed a registered instrument of partition to which himself, his wife and five children were parties; N. B. Nerlekar himself was party No. 1. The properties were set out in two schedules 'A' and 'B'. The 'A' schedule properties he retained for himself and partitioned only 'B' schedule properties among himself, his wife and children under the instrument. The opening paragraphs (II) and (III) of the deed contain the following recitals : '(II) Properties mentioned in schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed at pages 10 and 11 to this instrument are initially the self acquisition of No. 1, i.e., Sri Narayan Balakrishna Nerlekar. The joint family had no nucleus or ancestral pr...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Aswathiah and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR860(KAR); [1968]69ITR860(Karn)
1. The assessee, who is a manufacture of agarbathies, made a return of his income for the assessment year 1958-59 disclosing Rs. 23,718.00 as the aggregate income from his business. The Income-tax Officer declined to accept it and, acting under the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act of 1922, estimated his profits at 30 per cent. of the turnover resulting in an addition of Rs. 25,792.00 to the gross profits disclosed by the assessee. The opinion of the officer was confirmed on appeal both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee moved the Tribunal under section 66(1) to refer the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the additions of Rs. 25,792 made for deficiency in the gross profits disclosed by the assessee ?' 2. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that no question of law arises out of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Pathikonda Balasubba Setty (Deceased) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR252(KAR); [1967]65ITR252(Karn); (1967)1MysLJ639
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The assessee, deceased Pathikonda Balasubba Setty, was carrying on business as karta of a joint family in several articles. Among the lines of business, two were the buying and selling of groundnut kernel and manufacturing and selling of groundnut oil and oilcake. His account year was from Diwali to Diwali. His return of income for the account year ended 1st November, 1948, liable to assessment during the income-tax year 1949-50 was not accepted as fully correct by the Income-tax Officer. He made therefore three additions to the income as returned as follows : To the gross profits attributable to the business of buying and selling of groundnut, he added a sum of Rs. 16,845 on the ground that the several transactions were not fully supported by vouchers and that, therefore, it was necessary to estimate the gross profits. He estimated the same at 10 per cent. of the overall turnover. 2. To the gross profit attributable to the business in groundnut oil and cake, he add...
Tag this Judgment!Vittal Laxman Kalgutkar and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant279; AIR1968Mys279; (1967)1MysLJ533
ORDER(1) On January 15, 1959, the right to operate a power launch service and the collection of ferry toll in respect of the Sadashivagad Kodibagh ferry in the District of North Canara, was the subject matter of a public auction concerning the period commencing on August 1, 1959 and ending on March 31, 1962. Ex. 43 was the proclamation incorporation the conditions of the auction.(2) A certain V. L. Kalgutkar who is now dead and who was the plaintiff who instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, offered the highest bid of Rs. 27,000 in respect of the entire period. The commencement of the auction was preceded by a deposit of Rs. 200 made by the bidders including the highest bidder and according tot he allegations in the plaint, there was an acceptance of the highest bid by the Executive Engineer and a deposit of a tenth part of the highest bid amounting to Rs. 2,700.(3) On July 30, 1959, the concerned Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the highest bidder V. L. Kalgutkar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »