Karnataka Court June 1969 Judgments
M. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant100; AIR1970Mys100; (1970)1MysLJ462
Tukol, J.1. This Writ Petition raises a question of some significance to employees working in Co-operative Societies governed by the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the Mysore Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960.2. The petitioner has been a member of the Gandhi Bazar Consumers' Co-operative Society, Shimoga, since 1963; and was one of the nominated members on the Committee of Management which elected him as Secretary at its meeting held on 14-8-1963. He was one of the nominated members under Order No. 1912/66-67 issued by the Assistant Registrar on 3-10-1966. This order was followed by a communication dated 27-10-1966: from that very Officer intimating the petitioner that his nomination had been withdrawn as he was not eligible to serve as Director on the Committee of Management of the Society under the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (c) of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules. 1960 (hereinafter called the Rulesl. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on December ...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Ramalingappa Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant160; AIR1970Mys160; ILR1969KAR269
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On September 4. 1962, the petitioner was appointed as a Motor Vehicles Inspector as a local candidate in the department of Motor Vehicles of the State. But from that post there was a displacement when, on May 16, 1964 the State Level Recruitment Committee made a selection of other persons to various posts in the State. So, by an order made on May 23, 1964, the petitioner's services were terminated.2. The selection made by the State Level Recruitment Committee was challenged in more than one writ petition before this Court and one of them was W.P. No. 903 of 1964. That writ petition and the companion matters succeeded, and, by an order made on June 3, 1955, the selection made by the State Level Recruitment Committee was quashed on the ground that that body had not been properly constituted.3. But, during the pendency of those writ petitions some persons whose services had also been terminated in the same way in which the petitioner's service had been terminated, conti...
Tag this Judgment!Dasappa (D.M.) Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1969
Reported in: ILR1969KAR261; (1970)ILLJ485Kant; (1969)2MysLJ190
ORDERTukol, J. 1. The petitioner who is a co-owner of Gargandur estate in Coorg district has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the award by the labour court, Bangalore, on 29 June, 1966 in Reference No. 68 of 1965. 2. An industrial dispute arose between the management of the estate and the 58 workmen represented by respondent 2 regarding payment of wages for 3 May, 1964, the date on which the management had declared a festival holiday. Amongst the workmen of his establishment, some of the workmen were paid the wages for that day while the 58 persons were denied the wages for that day on the ground that they had not been in continuous service for a period of thirty days immediately preceding the said holiday. The workmen contended that all of them were permanent employees having put in years of service in the estate and were therefore entitled to payment of full wages for the festival holiday in question. By an order PLM 279 LL...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Dodda Gangadharaiah Vs. V.H. Channabasavaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant139; AIR1970Mys139; (1969)2MysLJ261
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On June 24, 1960 ah application was presented to this Court in Civil Petition No. 282 of 1960 for the grant of a probate of a will stated to have been executed on May 14, 1958 by a certain Chikkachannananjappa. That application stood transmitted to the Court of the District-JudExecutorshipsge of Kolar, and Doddagangadharaiah who is the appellant before us produced a caveat on August 29, 1960. He repudiated the genuineness of the will and opposed the grant of the probate. 2. The application for a probate had been presented by Channabasavaiah who is respondent before us, and he claimed to be the executor under the will. 3. On August 31, 1963 Channabasavaiah made an application to the District Judge under Section 230 of the Succession Act. In that application to which he affixed his signature, he made a statement that he had renounced his executor-ship under the will and sought permission of the Court to withdraw his application for probate. The relevant part of that ap...
Tag this Judgment!B. Siddoji Rao Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant162; AIR1970Mys162; [1971(22)FLR139]; ILR1969KAR231; (1969)2MysLJ450
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner was a garden supervisor in the Government Spun Silk Mills at Channapatna in the district of Bangalore and he was also the convener of the canteen committee of a canteen organised by Government. At one stage there was a criminal prosecution instituted against the petitioner on the allegation that he assaulted the Administrative Officer of the mills who is respondent 3 before us, but that prosecution ended in the petitioner's acquittal. Meanwhile the petitioner had been dismissed from the post of a garden supervisor.2. It was in that situation that the petitioner sought a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act after there was an unsuccessful endeavour at conciliation. That reference was refused by Government on December 31, 1966 through an order which reads:'GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE No. LMA 573 LLD 66.Mysore GovernmentSecretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, Dated 31-12-1966. From The Secretary to the Government of Mysore,Labour the Munic...
Tag this Judgment!K.Y. Pilliah and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR129(KAR); [1970]75ITR129(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The questions referred for our decision under section 65(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act are : '(1) Whether the Income-tax Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to entertain the additional ground of appeal urged by the assessee regarding the correct rate of tax applicable or to be applied for the nine months income considered in the assessment (2) Whether the assessee's income for nine months ended on March 31, 1950, could have been rightly assessed at the rate applicable for twelve months' income (3) Whether there was any material available on record to support the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee's turnover for the year ended March 31, 1950 was Rs. 15,00,000 ?' 2. The learned counsel on both sides were agreed that question No. 1 need not be answered as the said question is involved in question No. 2 which was directed by this court to be referred as it arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!K.Y. Pilliah and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant110; AIR1970Mys110
ORDER1. The questions referred for our decision under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act are:-- 1. Whether the Income Tax Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to entertain the additional ground of appeal urged by the Assessee regarding the correct rate of tax applicable or to be applied for the nine months' income considered in the assessment? 2. Whether the Assessee's income for nine months ended on 31-3-1950 could have been rightly assessed at the rate applicable for twelve months' income? 3. Whether there was any material available on record to support the Tribunal's conclusion that the Assessee's turnover for the year ended 31-3-1950 was Rs. 15,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsel on both sides were agreed that question No. 1 need not be answered as the said question is involved in Question No. 2 which was directed by this Court to be referred as it arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee, S...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Drug House and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MysLJ531; [1970]25STC182(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. These writ petitions raise common questions concerning the interpretation of section 18-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. The writ petitions are directed against the orders of the Commissioner Tax Officer, Bangalore (respondent No. 2) levying penalties under section 18-A of the Act. The main contention of the petitioners before the Commercial Tax Officer was that they have not contravened the provisions of sub-section (1) or (2) of section 18 and, therefore, no penalty could be levied on them. A number of other contentions were urged before the Commercial Tax Officer including the constitutional validity of section 18-A. 2. The orders impugned refer to the main contention urged by the petitioners, viz., that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 18 have not been contravened as they have collected tax only at the specified rates. The said objection of the petitioners, however, has not been satisfactorily considered by the Commerc...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Mudambadithaya and ors. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Kant362; AIR1969Mys362
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In these 40 Writ Petitions in which we heard arguments with respect to each of the writ petitions on the basis of its own facts and pleadings, we find it possible to pronounce a common order and we accordingly do so.2. These 40 writ petitions concern two final inter-State seniority lists made by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act in respect of the post of an Inspector and a junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies in the new State of Mysore which came into being on November 1, 1956 the Department of Co-operation in which there was a concourse of civil services from five different areas of which the new State was composed. These lists rested principally upon equations made by the Central Government on the advice tendered by the Advisory Committee of which Section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act speaks.3. The list pertaining to the post of an Inspector integrated twenty-one species of posts. Sixteen of ...
Tag this Judgment!Segu Butchaiah Setty Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR607(KAR); [1970]76ITR607(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. Writ Petition No. 304 of 1967 arises out of the recovery proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which would be referred to as the 'new Act', by which the Tax Recovery Officer functioning under that Act took steps for the recovery of income-tax due in respect of the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, determined in an assessment proceeding to which an unregistered firm was dissolved in the year 1955, after the assessment was made.2. A notice of demand under section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be referred to as the 'old Act', was issued to the unregistered firm, following which, a certificate was forwarded under section 46(2) of the old Act to the Collector. The assessee named in that certificate was the unregistered firm.3. In Writ Petitions Nos. 515 of 519 and 578 and 579 the petitioner was one of the members of an association of persons in respect of which there were assessments and imposition of penalties in respect of various assessment years...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »