Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant171; AIR1969Mys171
ORDER1. We are asked in this civil petition by the Management of a Newspaper industry to quash an order made by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955 which will be referred to as the 1955 Act and Section 9 of the Working (Fixation of Rates and Wages) Act 1958 which will be referred to as the 1958 Act. By that order which was made on an application presented by six quondam employees of the newspaper concern, the Labour Court directed the payment of the wages which became due under the 1955 Act on their fixation under the 1958 Act. section 2(f) of the 1955 Act defines a working journalist, and it is undisputed that respondents 1 to 6 during the period to which the claim made by them related were working journalists as defined by that clause. section 17 of that Act authorises an application by a 'newspaper employee' to an authority specified by the state Government for a certificate to the Collector that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1968(17)FLR401]; (1969)IILLJ823Kant; (1968)2MysLJ396
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. We are asked in this civil petition by the management of a newspaper industry to quash an order made by the labour court under S. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, which will be referred to as the 1955 Act and S. 9 of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates and Wages) Act, 1958, which will be referred to as the 1958 Act. By that order, which was on an application presented by six quondam employees of the newspaper concern, the labour court directed the payment of the wages which became due under the 1955 Act on their fixation under the 1958 Act. Section 2(f) of the 1955 Act defines a working journalist, and it is undisputed that respondents 1 to 6 during the period to which the claim made by them related, were working journalists as defined by that clause. Section 17 of that Act authorizes an application by a 'newspaper employee' to an authority specified by the State Government for a certificate to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant259; AIR1969Mys259; (1969)1MysLJ99
ORDER1. This petition is directed against an order, allowing the amendment of the plaint, made by the learned Third Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, on I. A. No. VIII in Original Suit No. 137 of 1967.2. It is necessary to mention a few facts, which are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,500/- against the present petitioner. The cause of action for the claim was based on an alleged agreement, according to which, the plaintiff was constituted as 'the sole distributor in Bangalore' for the distribution of motion picture entitled 'Chemmeen.' This picture is said to have been produced by the first defendant Messrs. Kanmani Films. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant was trying to transfer the right of 'distribution rights' to other concerns and maneuvering to take away the print of the picture from the custody and possession of the plaintiff. In regard to the assessment of the claim, it was contended by the plaintiff that, ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant222; AIR1969Mys222; (1968)2MysLJ581
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This writ petition concerns a best judgment determination of the tax which the petitioner was called upon to pay under the provisions of the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961. From the order of the tax officer who made that determination there was an appeal to the Commissioner of Transport who dismissed it. The petitioner asks us to quash the orders made against him.2. It is undisputed that the motor vehicle with which we are concerned in this writ petition is a tractor trailer in respect of which the petitioner obtained a public carrier permit. A public carrier vehicle, according to the definition contained in S. 2(9) of the Act, means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry goods for hire or reward. During the proceedings before the Tax Officer for the determination of the tax payable by him on the hypothesis that the tractor trailer was used by him for carrying goods, notices were taken out to the petitioner twice and those no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1969]23STC323(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. These three writ petitions are directed against assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer of escaped turnover which he purported to make under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The turnover related to arecanuts, and the petitioner was not the and purchaser. Under the seventh entry in the Third Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, in respect of the turnover relating to arecanuts, sales tax is payable only at the purchase point by the first or earliest of successive dealers liable to tax under the Act. Since the petitioner was not the first purchaser within the meaning of that entry, he was not the person liable to pay the tax with respect to the purchase made by him. But the Commercial Tax Officer was of the opinion that since the registered dealer from whom the petitioner made the purchase had entered into a composition under section 17 and had paid a certain sum of money in lieu of the amount of tax payable by him, and so he was not liable to pay any ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant303; AIR1969Mys303; (1969)1MysLJ50
Somnath Iyer, J.1. These three matters raise the same question, and so, could be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in W. Ps. 417 and 418 of 1967 is a dealer in hides and skins. The petitioner in S. T. R. P. 43 of 1967 is a dealer in copra and coconuts. Their turnover during the relevant assessment years was subjected to sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, but the goods which were purchased by these two dealers which were declared goods within the meaning of Section 5(4) were subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. So they claimed a refund of the tax which had been paid by them. That refund is what is claimable under the proviso to Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act Which reads:--'5(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a tax under this Act shall be levied in respect of the sale or purchase of any of the declared goods mentioned in column (2) of the Fourth Schedule at the rate and only at the point specified in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)1MysLJ160; [1969]23STC317(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. It is undisputed that the petitioners in these cases were entitled to the refund claimed on the enunciation made by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231.) and by this Court in Govindaraju Chetty v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1968] 22 S.T.C. 46; 10 Law Rep. 605.). That principle was that in respect of an inter-State sale, no sales tax is payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, if no sales tax would have been payable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act if that transaction had been an inter-State sale. 2. It is admitted that had the transactions with which we are concerned in these writ petitions taken place inside the State, no sales tax would have been payable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, and, therefore, as explained by the Supreme Court in Lakshminarasimhiah Setty's case ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231.) under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it now stands, no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was payable with respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant266; AIR1969Mys266; (1969)1MysLJ19
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The three Writ Petitions concern the grant of permits either in respect of the route between Bangalore and Madanapalli or in respect of the route between Madanapalli and Bangalore, by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in the second appeals. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal granted the permits in two cases, the Regional Transport Authority in one, and the State Transport Authority in the fourth. There were three applicants for a permit between Bangalore and Madanapalli and only one in respect of the route between Madanapalli and Bangalore. Narayanappa, Rangappa Reddy and Devaraja Mudaliar were the applicants for permits in respect of the routes between Bangalore and Madanapalli. Narayanappa was the earliest applicant, Rangappa Reddy, the next and Devaraja Mudaliar the third. Venkatasubba Rao made an application in respect of the route between Madanapalli and Bangalore after Narayanappa had made his application and before Rangappa Reddy made his.2. Venkatasubba Rao his perm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1969]71ITR344(KAR); [1969]71ITR344(Karn); (1968)2MysLJ433
Somnath Iyer, J.1. A certain Shaik Abdul Kadar, who was a resident of Goa, died on April 2, 1963, and his son, who is the petitioner, produced an account under section 53(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in which he stated that the value of the estate in respect of which estate duty was payable was Rs. 26,000. In a covering letter with which that account was delivered, he enumerated the gifts which had been made according to him by the deceased, Shaik Abdul Kadar, before the extension of the Indian laws to the Goa territory. 2. The assistant Controller of Estate Duty then made a provisional assessment under section 57. In the course of the order which he made, he stated that the petitioner had admitted that the value of the estate of the deceased, in respect of which estate duty was payable, was Rs. 14,42,509 and that, therefore, the tax which could be provisionally determined as payable by the petitioner was Rs. 1,83,196.83. 3. It is this provisional assessment which is challenged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ160Kant
ORDERGopivallabha Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the validity of the rules called 'the Mysore Education Department Services (Technical Education Department) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1967,' made by the Governor of Mysore in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. As identical questions arise for decision in all the above writ petitions, a common order is passed. These rules were published under a notification dated 9 February, 1967 which reads as follows : 'GOVERNMENT OF MYSORENo. ED 91 DGO 58 Mysore Government SecretariatVidhana SoudhaBangalore, dated 9 February, 1967 Notification In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Mysore hereby makes the following rules, namely : (1) Title. - These rules may be called the Mysore Education Department Services (Technical Education Depart...
Tag this Judgment!