Karnataka Court February 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.V.H.E.P. Sagar, Dist. Shimoga Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant13; AIR1968Mys13
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) By a preliminary notification made on September 10, 1961, there was an acquisition of 10 acres 39 guntas of wet lands, 23 guntas of dry land and 5 guntas of garden land. These properties, belonged to the claimant, situate in the village of Mathikoppa in the District of Shimoga. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the wet lands at the rate of Rs. 800 an acre and for the garden land at the rate of Rs. 10,000 an acre. We are not concerned with the compensation awarded for the dry land in this appeal, since the matter is not before us.(2) But, in the enhancement proceedings, the District Judge enhanced the compensation for the wet land to a sum calculated at Rs. 2,000 an acre and for the garden land to a sum calculated at Rs. 21,000 an acre. The Land Acquisition Officer complains that the enhancement made by the District Judge is excessive.(3) Mr. Ramadas, the learned Government Pleader submitted to us that the District Judge made a mistake in thinking...
Chunilal Parsram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR288(KAR); [1968]70ITR288(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The question referred in this case pursuant to an order made by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is : 'Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal, it is justified in law, in holding that profit of Rs. 12,959,09 in the cloth transaction, under the contract dated December 3, 1958, entered by the assessee with Messrs. Suratram Gopaldas, firm of Bombay was the profit in the hands of the Hindu undivided family ?' 2. The assessee, Seth Chunilal Parsram was being assessed in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three minor sons, the principal source of whose income was money-lending business. Although there was at one stage an attempt by the assessee to give it the character of a separate business carried on by him with money borrowed from the family, to the relevant details of which we shall refer presently, there is no dispute at present that the money-lending business was and continued to be...
State of Mysore Vs. Anthony Benedict
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1638; (1968)IILLJ448Kant; (1968)1MysLJ519
1. The appellant is the State Government and the decree challenged is one made by the Subordinate Judge in a suit brought by the plaintiff who was a peon in the Judicial Sub-Magistrate's Court, Udipi. He was transferred on 14 November, 1957 to the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Puttur, and, after he was so transferred he did not report himself to duty but made applications time and again for the grant of leave. The last application was made on 4 October, 1958 in which he asked for four months' leave. On 29 November, 1958 the District Magistrate of Mangalore refused the leave and directed the plaintiff to report himself to duty by a particular date. On the plaintiff not reporting to duty in that way, the District Magistrate made an order on 22 December, 1958 that the plaintiff had lost his lien on his post 'in the criminal judiciary in the district of Kanara.' 2. In his suit the plaintiff sought a cancellation of this order and a decree for arrears of salary. The Munsif dismisse...
M. Damodar Bhat Vs. the Third Income Tax Officer, Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Kant258; AIR1968Mys258
Narayan Pai, J.(1) The principal prayer in this Writ Petition is for the quashing of an order or notice dated 23rd April, 1965 made and issued by the Third Income-tax Officer, Mangalore, produced as Exhibit VIII with the petition. The other prayers are neither incidental or ancillary to the said main relief.(2) The impugned notice was issued under sub-section (3) of Section 226 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and addressed to a third party called the Rajarajeshwari Motor Service from whom certain sums of money, it was believed, were due or payable to the petitioner. The petitioner was in arrears in respect of income-tax and penalty levied on him in respect of three or four assessment years. The total amount shown as due in the notice was Rs. 74,086.02 P. Although in the affidavit in support of the petition the petitioner has stated that something less was due, it is now conceded that the particulars set out in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit are correct. They are;1. Tax for the assess...