Karnataka Court January 1968 Judgments
(In Liquidation) Official Liquidator Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas896(Kar); [1968]68ITR295(KAR); [1968]68ITR295(Karn); (1970)2MysLJ512
1. As almost all the details of work in connection with the winding-up of the affairs of the company had been concluded and there appeared to be available with the liquidator more than a lakh of rupees and requests were made on behalf of the petitioning-creditor and other that steps may be taken to declare a final dividend, I directed the liquidator to file a report giving particulars so that that I may give further directions for the above purpose. 2. The liquidator filed a report stating that though there was with him a sum of Rs. 1,47,483 in the account of the winding-up, it may not be possible to declare a dividend for the reason that large amounts would be required to pay the fees due to Central Government and also that the auditors had suggested that there was also a tax liability in respect of income arising out of the investments made in the course of winding up. As the liquidator appeared to entertain the opinion that it was a matter for doubt whether the company in liquidatio...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Ahmed Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ450Kant; (1968)1MysLJ225
ORDERChandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioner was a member of the Mysore Judicial Service holding the rank of Civil Judge. In the normal course he should have retired on 4 May, 1967 on his attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 55 years. On 14 October, 1966, the Governor of Mysore made the following order retiring him compulsorily under note 1 to rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules :...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Balthilaya Vs. Venkatesha Balthilaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant6; AIR1969Mys6
1. The plaintiff appellant and his suit was for a declaration that he had a mamul right to take water from a channel on the defendant's land S. No. 71/7 for the cultivation of his land Survey No. 71/5 after the construction of a katta in the south-east corner of the defendant's land across the stream so that the water may flow in the direction of his own land. I am not concerned in this appeal with the right of way since the claim to that right was given up in the lower appellate court. The only question, therefore, that remained for the lower appellate court consider to consider was whether the mamul right asserted by the plaintiff was established.2. The plaintiff examined a large number of witnesses in support of his assertion that there was a mamul right and the defendant examined himself and another witness in support of the allegation that the plaintiff was not raising any wet crop on his land but allowed it to lie fallow. Both the courts disbelieved the evidence given by the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Ahmed Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant248; AIR1969Mys248; (1971)2MysLJ422
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioner was a member of the Mysore Judicial Service holding the rank of Civil Judge. In the normal course he should have retired on 4-5-1967 on his attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 55 years. On 14-10-1966 the Governor of Mysore made the following order retiring him compulsorily under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules:'Government of Mysore'No GAD 106 SHC 66.Mysore Government Secretariat,Vidhana Soudha' Bangalore, Dated 14th October, 1966. ORDERWhereas the Governor of Mysore is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to retire Shri Abdur Rahim Ahmed, Civil Judge, Shimoga, from service;Now therefore, under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, the Governor of Mysore hereby retires from service Shri Abdur Rahim Ahmed, Civil Judge, Shimoga, with effect from the 24th October, 1966.He shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his salary for a period of three months in lieu of notice under the sa...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Bangalore Race Club Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1968
Reported in: [1970]40CompCas1154(Kar)
Narayana Pai, J.1. This petition under section 398 of the companies Act, 1956, is by a member of a company called the Bangalore Race Club since re-named as bangalore Turf Club Ltd., and complains of a certain state of affairs said to be prejudicial to the interests of the company on the basis of the which the petitioner seeks an appropriate order under the said section. The respondent is the company itself. 2. Notice of the petition was directed to the central Government the company itself and individually to twelve members of the managing committee of the company. 3. The Central Government has filed a statement through one of its under secretaries to the effect that the company Law Board does not propose to made any representation in the matter. 4. The allegations in the petition are traversed by a common affidavit filed on behalf of the company and members of its governing body sworn to by an assistant secretary of the company. 5. Certain facts are not disputed. The Bangalore Turf Cl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›