Karnataka Court October 1969 Judgments
Babu Murlidhar Vs. Soudagar Mohammad Abdul Bashir and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant203; AIR1970Mys203; (1970)1MysLJ34
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit which he brought for the redemption of a mortgage with possession which he created in favour of defendant 1 in the year 1342 fasli. The suit was resisted on the ground that under a subsequent agreement which was executed on May 30, 1940, by the plaintiff in favour of defendant 1, the right of redemption has been lost and defendant 1, had become the owner of the property. The appeal in that context was to the doctrine of part performance which Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act incorporates. Both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge accepted the plea of defendant 1 and dismissed the suit. So, this second appeal.2. Exhibit D-3 which is the subsequent agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant 1 on May 30, 1940, states that there was a mortgage with possession in favour of defendant 1 for a period of five years for securing the repayment of a sum of Rs. 2,500/- borrowed by the plaintiff from defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Arasappa Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Ii, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR201(KAR); [1970]77ITR201(Karn)
Ventataswami, J.1. These are a batch of four petitions giving rise to common questions of law and can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in all these cases in an ex-partner of a dissolved firm by name Srinivasa Weaving Factory. The firm was assessed to income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The four petitions relate to the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56. Subsequent to the assessment in respect of all those years, the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the firm was under-assessed inasmuch as certain income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Income-tax Officer, after obtaining the sanction from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, issued to the firm a notice under section 34 of the Act in respect of the above assessment years. Some time after the issue of the aforesaid notice, further notice under section 23(2) of the Act came to be issued. Since the assessee did not comply with ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Surtax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1969
Reported in: [1971]80ITR571(KAR); [1971]80ITR571(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 18 of the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter called 'the Act' read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The question referred for our opinion are : '1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,56,000 representing plaint modernisation and rehabilitation reserve was not to be considered in computing the assessee's capital for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 representing loan redemption reserve was not to be considered in computing the assessee's capital for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? 3. On the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 89,557 representing develop...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Nagarathnamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR352(KAR); [1970]76ITR352(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the Commissioner under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1996. the question of law referred for our opinion are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in excluding 4/17th share from the assessment of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1960-61 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that by virtue of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, income to the extent of 4/17th share was not includible in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1960-61 ?' 2. One Ramaswamy Setty was a partner in two firms, namely, M/s. T. Seenappasetty Bros. & Co. and M/s. T. satyanarayana Rice & Oil Mills. He held shares in the said two firms in his capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and three minor sons. The income of his Hindu undivided family. ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathamma and anr. Vs. Bhadramma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant157; AIR1970Mys157
1. There was a certain Basegowda, who lived in the District of Chikmagalur until his death which took place in the year 1962. He had two wives, the first of them being Bhadramma, who isplaintiff 1, through whom he had a daughter Eramma, who is plaintiff 2. The second is Saraswathamma, who is defendant 1, through whom he got a son Nagesha, who is defendant 2. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Bhadramma and her daughter Eramma for a declaration that they were exclusively entitled to all the properties of Basegowda and for an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their enjoyment and possession thereof. They also sought a decree for certain other reliefs to which it is not necessary to advert.2. This suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 on the plea that each of them was entitled to a 4th share in the properties of Basegowda as his second Wife and son respectively. It was asserted by defendants that the marriage of Basegowda with defendant 1 was solemnise...
Tag this Judgment!A. Misrimal JaIn and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MysLJ386; [1971]28STC137(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. These are four sales tax revision petitions raising common questions of law. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the material facts which are not in dispute. The petitioners are dealers in cloth. Sale of cloth was charged to sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act', at the rates specified in the Second Schedule of the Act. In 1957, pursuant to an agreement between the State and Central Governments, the former exempted from sales tax articles on which additional excise duty is levied by the latter Government. The Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, was accordingly amended. The levy of additional excise duty on the cloth manufactured in India came into force on 14th December, 1957. On 14th December, 1957, the petitioners held stocks of cloth which did not suffer additional excise duty. On the sale of cloth made during the period 14th December, 1957, and 31st March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Government Soap Factory, Bangalore-12 Vs. the Presid ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant225; AIR1970Mys225; ILR1969KAR484; (1970)1MysLJ104
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This is a petition for quashing the order of the Labour Court, Bangalore, which directed the management of the Government Soap Factory, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Management) to pay extra wages to respondents 2 and 3 for overtime work.2. Most of the material facte are not in dispute. Respondents 2 and 3 were employed as watchmen in the petitioner-Factory (hereinafter referred to as the Factory) and they have since retired from such employment. Between the years 1957 and 1959 the Factory was shifted from its premises near Vidhana Soudha to its hew building in Raiajinagar. During that period respondents 2 and 3 worked overtime. The respective numbers of hours of overtime work done by them are not in dispute. They claimed extra wages for such overtime work. The management paid each of them such extra wages at the respective single rate of wage without . Dearness Allowance. Rs. 576-47 and Rs. 553-88 were said to respondents 2 and 3 respectively.3. Not be...
Tag this Judgment!J. Subba Rao and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR241(KAR); [1970]77ITR241(Karn)
Venkataswami, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The question referred for our answer is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant renewal of registration to the assesses firm for the year 1963-64 ?'2. The assessee was a partnership firm consisting of 5 partners previous to the assessment year 1963-64. It had been registered as such under the relevant provisions of the Act. For the assessment year 1963-64 a declaration in Form No. 12 in accordance with section 184(7) of the Act had been filed for the purpose of continuation of registration as required by section 184(7) and the relevant Rules. But, the declaration in question had been signed by only 4 and 5 partners. According to the assessee, the partners J. S. Venkatesh Rao, was absconding and, as such, his wife, Sharada Bai, had signed on his behalf.3. The Income-tax officer refused to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›