Karnataka Court September 1968 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.
Bharati Trading and Industrial Co. (Bharathi Coffee Curing Works) Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant257; AIR1969Mys257; (1968)2MysLJ434
ORDER1. The Petitioner is a firm in Hassan which owns a coffee curing establishment. Under an agreement executed between the Coffee Board and the firm, the Board appointed the firm as their agents for curing operations in respect of the coffee entrusted to the firm. It is not necessary to refer to the other purposes referred to in that agreement.2. In respect of the year 1963-64 the Chief Marketing Officer made an order on September, 18, 1965 directing the firm to pay to the Board a sum of Rs. 29,813-51 which in his opinion was the deficiency in the out-turn of coffee which, under the agreement the firm was bound to deliver to the Coffee Board. His finding was that not all the cured coffee which had to be delivered by the firm had been delivered to the Board, and so, the value of the deficiency must be made good in that way.3. From this decision of the Chief Marketing Officer the petitioner appealed to the Coffee Board which referred it to a committee which dismissed the appeal by an o...
R.N. Nanjundappa and ors. Vs. T. Thimmiah and ors. Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant208; AIR1969Mys208; (1969)1MysLJ22
Gopivallabha Iyengar, 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 Article 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 9-2-1967 which reads as follows:GOVERNMENT OF MYSORENo. ED 91 DGO 58 Mysore Government SecretariatVidhana SoudhaBangalore dt. 9-2-1967Magha 20 S. E. 1888NOTIFICATIONIn exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 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 Department) (Specia...
The Malnad Arecanut Syndicate (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MysLJ46; [1969]23STC472(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The question arising in these six writ petitions is common, and it arises in this way. The petitioners are traders in arecanut and their turnover in respect of their inter-State sales of arecanut was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1959-60 and subsequent years under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956). 2. The Third Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, enumerates goods in respect of which only a single point purchase tax is leviable under section 5(3)(b) of the Act The seventh item of that Schedule, which refers to arecanut, states that such tax is payable only at the point of purchase by the first or earliest of successive dealers in the State liable to tax under the Act. 3. In The State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons [[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231] the enunciation made by the Supreme Court was that under the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it then stood, sales tax wa...
The State of Mysore Vs. S.R. Bhide
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MysLJ557; [1969]24STC446(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The respondent Bhide entered into a contract with the Southern Railway under which he agreed to collect and train out stone ballasts in certain zone of that railway administration comprising the Ranibennur, Yalavagi and Annigere and Hubli permanent way sections. When he collected the ballasts and trained them out on the permanent way sections he was paid a sum of Rs. 1,64,995 by the railway administration. This sum of money was assessed to sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer on the hypothesis that there was a sale by the respondent to the railway administration of stone ballasts of the value of Rs. 1,62,470, and other materials in respect of another contract of the value of Rs. 2,525. There were two contracts which were entered into between the respondent and the railway administration. The one related to the construction of buildings and other connected works, and the other to the collection and training out of stone ballasts. The aggregate sum of money paid by...
Vasthimal Joraji Bhural and Co. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MysLJ559; [1969]23STC45(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner is a person who carries on business in certain dry battery cells described as 'Eveready energisers' for transistors and other electronic appliances. The sales of these energisers were included in his turnover for the period between 1960 and 1964 and the Commercial Tax Officer determined the sales tax payable at the rate specified in the third column of the fifty-third item in the Second Schedule of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. The petitioner, however, contended that the 'energisers' did not fall within that item but fell within the sixty-first item of the Second Schedule, and that sales tax could not be demanded at the higher rate specified in the fifty-third item, but only at the lower rate mentioned against item No. 61. 3. The fifty-third item of the Second Schedule at the relevant point of time read : 'SECOND SCHEDULE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Description Rate of of the goods tax (1) (2) (3...
Gokak Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MysLJ99; [1969]23STC25(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In respect of the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, when the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction suo motu under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, he reached the conclusion that the turnover in respect of cotton yarn between the period 1st April, 1958, and 30th September, 1958, could not be subjected to tax in view of the declaration of the law, by this Court, in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 583.) v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597.) Karnatak Coffee Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 658.) and Mysore Silk House v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597.) and the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231.). 2. But the Deputy Commissioner erroneously restricted the rectification which he made only to the periods antecedent to 1st October, 1958. It is clear from the decision of ...
Fernandes (R.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1968
Reported in: ILR1969KAR9; (1969)IILLJ442Kant; (1968)2MysLJ537
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 121 of 1966 is a certain Fernandes who is the managing partner of a cashewnut factory in Mangalore. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1966 is a certain Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai who is the proprietor of another reasons cashewnut factory in that place. For the reason that they committed default in the payment of their committed default in the payment of their contribution to the employees' provident fund payable under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the administrative charges payable under the scheme made under the provisions of the Act, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner called upon them to pay damages determined under S. 14B of that Act. The amount demanded of Fernandes was Rs. 12,760 which consisted of amount described as penal interest and penal damages. Similarly, the amount demanded of Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai was Rs. 19,318.2. We are asked in these writ petitions to quash those demands on the gr...
R. Fernandes and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant196; AIR1969Mys196; [1969(18)FLR63]; (1969)IILLJ442aKant
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 121 of 1966 is a certain Fernandes who is the Managing Partner of a cashewnut factory in Mangalore. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1966 is a certain Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai who is the proprietor of another cashewnut factory in that place. For the reasons that they committed default in the payment of their contribution to the Employees Provident Fund payable under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the administrative charges payable under the scheme made under the provisions of the Act, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner called upon them to pay damages determined under Section 14B of that Act. The amount demanded of Fernandes was Rs. 12,760/- which consisted of amounts described as penal interest and penal damages. Similarly, the amount demanded of Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai was Rs. 19,318/-.2. We are asked in these Writ Petitions to quash those demands on the ground that there was no proper determinatio...
Bhimappa Timmappa Kividi Vs. Gireppa Laxmappa Kivadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant173; AIR1969Mys173
ORDER1. This petition is directed against an order made by the learned Munsiff at Mudhol, in Misc. Application No. 7 of 1967 on 17-6 1968.2. This application came to be presented by the plaintiff in C. S. No. 31 of 1965. This suit, it may be mentioned, was disposed of with a direction that the plaint be returned on account of want of pecuniary jurisdiction in that Court to entertain it. it would appear that subsequent to such return the suit was represented or re-filed in the Court of the Civil Judge at Bagalkot. The said suit is Spl. C. S. No. 22/67. While the suit was pending in the Court of the Munsiff at Mudhol, an order of temporary injunction was made, against which an appeal was preferred. In the course of the hearing of that appeal the parties appear to have come to terms and agreed for the appointment of a receiver to be nominated by the trial Court. It was further agreed that out of the realisation, by way of rent or otherwise, from the suit lands, the plaintiff was to take 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›