Karnataka Court June 1969 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.
Shambhu Mada Hegde Vs. Rama Ishwar Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant97; AIR1970Mys97; (1969)2MysLJ212
ORDER1. The principal question that arises for decision in this revision petition is whether the court which passed a preliminary decree in a suit for partition of properties including lands assessed to revenue, has competence and duty to take into account any compromise between the parties subsequent to such preliminary decree, and to pass a fresh decree in accordance with such compromise.2. The respondent herein was the original defendant in O. S. No. 186 of 1925, a suit for partition, on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hon-navar. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit. He made an application which was styled as a Darkhast application, praying that he might be given possession of a half share in the suit lands assessed to revenue and of 3/8th share in the timber and other materials out of the demolished suit house. The petitioner herein filed objections to that application, pleading, inter alia, that subsequent to the preliminary decree, a compromise was entered i...
N. Bommon Behram and anr. Vs. the Government of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant89; AIR1970Mys89
Tukol, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that this court should be pleased to strike down the proviso to Section 11 and Section 15-A of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have also prayed for a writ of prohibition against respondents 2 and 3 directing them not to follow the instructions given in letter No. RD 220 AQB '68 dated 29/30th August 1968 and to issue a mandamus directing them to maintain their own valuation expressed in the draft award dated 24th July 1968.2. In order to appreciate the points urged on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer briefly to the relevant facts that have given rise to the writ petition. Certain lands which are owned by the petitioners were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act. The lands were required for the use of the Border Security Force under the control of the Central Government. Prior to the iss...
K.O. Krishnaswamy and ors. Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mini ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant2; AIR1970Mys2; (1969)2MysLJ601
Somnath Iyer, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions, and so, could be disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 441 of 1966 is a firm called K. O. Krishnaswamy. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 443 of 1966 is another firm called Nagaraja Overseas Traders. Both these firms were proceeded against by the Director of Enforcement Directorate in respect of an accusation that they had contravened the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Central Act VII of 1947). The Director, after setting out the relevant facts concerning that accusation, proceeded to state that the two firms had pleaded guilty to thataccusation, and so, imposed a penalty in the following words:-- 'Accepting their pleas, I find the first two firms, viz., M/s. K. O. Krishnaswamy and M/s. Nagaraja Overseas Traders and their respective partners guilty under Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and, in view of the magnitude of the amo...
T.S. Krishnamurthy Shetty Vs. M. Bharamappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant10; AIR1970Mys10; (1969)2MysLJ234
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner before us is the village panchayat of Ujjini in Bellary district. When respondent 1 constructed a house in the year 1961 without the permission of the village panchayat, a notice was issued to him by that Panchayat on March 9, 1964 calling upon him to demolish the unauthorised construction. He was intimated that in his failure to do so, that demolition would be made by the panchayat.2. The Assistant Commissioner, to whom respondent 1 preferred an appeal under Section 53 (3) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, directed the village panchayat to desist from the demolition which it proposed to make, and the revision petition presented by the village panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner under Section 207 of the Act was dismissed as not maintainable.3. The panchayat asks us to quash the orders made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner in that way.4. Mr. Hiremath is right in contending that the view taken by the...
Bogram Lakshmiah and Brothers Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR188(KAR); [1970]76ITR188(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. These writ petitions pose common questions which could be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners are assessees in whose cases assessments were made under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be referred to as 'the old Act', and with respect to some of them there was imposition of a penalty also under the old Act. Notices of demand for the payments of the amounts due from them were also issued under section 29 of that Act and on their committing default in the payment of the amounts, certificates were issued in all these cases under section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will be referred to as the new Act for the recovery of the amounts due. 2. It was in this situation that the Tax Recovery Officer commenced proceedings for the recovery of these amounts under section 222 and we are asked by the petitioners to quash the notices of demand issued by him and to forbid the recovery. 3. Mr. Srinivasan appearing for the petitioners...
Begram Lakshmiah and Bros. and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant264; AIR1970Mys264
Somnath Iyer, J.1. These nine Writ Petitions pose common question which could be disposed of by common judgment. The petitioners are assessees in whose cases assessments were made under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be referred to as the old Act, and with respect to some of them there was imposition of a penalty also under the old Act. Notices of demand for the payment of the amounts due from them were also issued under Section 29 of that Act and on 'their committing default in the payment of the amounts, certificates were issued in all these cases under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will be referred to as the new Act for the recovery of the amounts due.2. It was in this situation that the tax recovery officer commenced proceedings for the recovery of these amounts under Section 222 and we are asked by the petitioners to 'quash the notices of demand issued by him and to forbid the recovery.3. Mr. Srinivasan appearing for the petitioners ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›