Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR634; (1968)2MysLJ189; [1969]23STC197(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1957-58, the Commercial Tax Officer, Gadag, made an order of assessment by which the turnover of the petitioner relating to the sale of cloth held by him on 14th December, 1957, was also included in the assessment. In Writ Petition No. 1235 of 1962, this Court made an order on 21st August, 1963, setting aside that part of the assessment. That judgment rested on the view that the relevant part of section 5 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, did not charge that part of the turnover with sales tax. 2. But, by the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Mysore Act 9 of 1964) section 5(5A) was amended retrospectively, and in consequence, the turnover which had been included by the Commercial Tax Officer in the order of assessment stood properly included. Section 34 of the amending Act validated the assessments made under the principal Act notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal So, the assessment made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1969]23STC68(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The appellant in these two appeals is a dealer who manufactures silk sarees and other textiles. With respect to his turnover for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the Commercial Tax Officer made an assessment by which he exempted from payment of tax, sales of sarees for the manufacture of which in addition to pure silk, artificial silk and lace had been used. This exemption rested on item 8A of the Fifth Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, as it stood at the relevant point of time. That item reads : 'FIFTH SCHEDULE Goods exempted from tax under section 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Description of goods. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8A. All varieties of textiles, namely, cotton, woollen or silken including rayon, art silk or nylon whether manufactured in mills or power-looms including hosiery cloth in lengths, but exclusive of pure silk.' --------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant78; AIR1969Mys78; (1968)2MysLJ289
1. Three is in the town of Haveri in the district of Dharwar, a municipal council which was established under the provisions of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, but is now governed by the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964 after it came into force on may 7, 1964. But when the term of office of the sitting councillors of this municipal council was about to expire, by the Mysore Local Authorities (Postponement of Elections and Continuance of Administrators) Act, 1965 (Mysore Act XXIV of 1965) which came into force on November 18, 1965, the election of new councillors to the municipal council stood postponed during the period of the emergency. This Act under which there was a postponement of elections, and which will be referred to as the Postponement Act, was repealed by the Mysore Local Authorities (Postponement of Elections and Continuance of Administrators) Repealing) Act. 1967 which will be referred to as the Repealing Act in the course of this judgment and which came into force...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant312; AIR1969Mys312; (1969)1MysLJ194
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a case in which the Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has made a recommendation under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 that a certain Umanath Rao who is a member of the Institute may be removed from the membership of the Institute for a period of one year in respect of acts of professional misconduct stated to have been committed by him.2. The Council did not find Umanath Rao guilty of any professional misconduct such as that enumerated in Schedule I of the Act, but it was of the opinion that the misconduct fell within clauses (7), (8) and (9) of Part I of the Second Schedule.3. Umanath Rao, who is respondent, was entrusted with the auditing of accounts of a company called the Canara Sales Corporation, Limited in Mangalore, He has stated in his explanation that he in turn entrusted the work to audit to his assistant who was a chartered accountant and to a clerk and was under the belief that the work was being done prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ752; (1969)1MysLJ1
1. The petitioner filed an application for action being taken under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gulbarga, in his proceedings No. Cr.P.C. 66-67/64 and arrayed the respondent as the respondent.2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate entertained the petition and on the basis of the note put up by the Sheristedar of his Court passed an order directing the Tahsildar to take possession of the lands in dispute for the purpose of management. He directed him to auction the crops standing on the lands.3. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as disclosed in the order sheet dated 6-10-1966 is an interesting reading and runs thus:--'The land in question may be taken to Court custody and crop auctioned until the case is disposed of.'This note admittedly, was made by the Sheristedar of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court. This note prepared by the Sheristedar was placed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the very same day and he pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant263; AIR1969Mys263; ILR1968KAR585; (1968)2MysLJ133
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The land to which this writ petition relates was admittedly acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the original owner of the property subsequently made an alienation in favour of the petitioner in the year 1960 after the land had vested in Government.2. In the year 1965, the City Improvement Trust Board, which claims to be a transferee of the property from Government, leased the property to respondent 1. Respondent 1, the lessee, it appears has begun the construction of a petrol pump on that land. The petitioner now seeks in this writ petition a direction that respondent 1, the lessee, and respondent 2, the City Improvement Trust Board, should not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property and that they should be restrained from digging up the foundation or from raising any construction on it.3. On behalf of the petitioner the claim asserted is that she is in possession of the property after she purchased it under a registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR579; (1969)IILLJ34Kant; (1968)2MysLJ297
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher as a local candidate, and on 1 January, 1960 he was in service. That service came to an end on 31 March, 1960 and he was again appointed by an order made on 1 June, 1960 under which he joined service on 13 June, 1960 and from that date he continues to be in service. He sought regularization of his appointment form the date on which he was initially appointed as a local candidate, and since the said regularization was refused, he seeks a direction for such regulation. 2. In support of his claim for regularization, he depends upon the order of Government made on 22 September, 1961 which directs that in areas other than the old Mysore area, appointments to class III direct recruitment posts made by local appointing authorities up to 1 June, 1960 shall be regularized subject to two conditions regarding age and qualification. This is the direction in Para. 1(ii) of that notification which has relevance to the case before us. In P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant242; AIR1969Mys242; ILR1968KAR564; (1968)2MysLJ219
Somnath Iyer, J.1. We are concerned in this Writ Petition with the timings assigned to the petitioner who is an inter-State permit holder. He operates his stage carriage on a route part of which lies in the state of Andhra Pradesh and the other part in the State of Mysore. This permit was granted to him in the first instance by the Regional Transport Authority of Chittoor for the route between Arogyavaram in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Chikballapur in the State of Mysore. At one stage the petitioner sought an extension of this route from Chikballapur to Doddaballapur in the State of Mysore over a distance of eighteen miles, and, when he sought such extension he also sought an alteration of the timings assigned to him.2. On June 29, 1966 the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor granted the variation in timings sought by the petitioner overruling the objections of respondent 2 who was also an inter-State permit holder operating between Madanapalli in the State of Andhra Pradesh and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1968]38CompCas272(Kar)
1. On August 26, 1952, a motor vehicle belonging to a company affording transport facilities known as the Chikkamagalur Public Conveyance Motor Service, Chikkamagalur, which will be referred to as C.P.C.M S. and which has been referred to as C.P.C.M.S. in both the courts below, dashed against a culvert and during that accident, one of the passengers, Putta Naika, was killed. His wife brought a suit against the three partners of the C.P.C.M.S., the driver of the bus, defendant No. 4, and the Canara Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., which was defendant No. 5, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,000 as compensation on behalf of herself and on behalf of her daughter, Devali Bai, and also Putta Naika's mother, Ammanibai. She also claimed a sum of Rs. 10 as notice charges. She charged defendant No. 4 with rash and negligent driving. 2. In their defence, the defendants repudiated the allegation that defendant No. 4 drove the motor vehicle rashly or negligently. They contended that the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1969CriLJ826
ORDERAhmed Ali Khan, J.1. Identical point of law arises foe consideration in bath these revision petitions. Therefore both of them are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners were involved on a charge of murder in Criminal Case No. 165/2 of 1967 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Shorapur. Warrants were issued against them when it was stated by the police that they were absconding. Thereafter the Magistrate issued proclamations for the attachment of their property. Those proclamations are challenged by the petitioners in these revision petitions.3. Mr. Hegde the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provision of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory and a proclamation under that Section ought to have been issued specifying not less than thirty days from the date of publishing of the proclamation for the appearance of the petitioners before the Court. Bat the Magistrate has given thirty days time from the date of the proclamation ...
Tag this Judgment!