Karnataka Court September 1969 Judgments
Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. KutubuddIn Rajesaheb Chancha and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant155; AIR1970Mys155; ILR1969KAR875; (1969)2MysLJ522
ORDER1. The 213 respondents in this Revision Petition filed a regular Original Suit No. 218 of 1964 before the Munsiff at Belgaum against the petitioner, Amalgamated Electricity Company Limited, claiming certain reliefs regarding rates for electricity supplied by the Petitioner-Defendant. Sometime thereafter, more than 100 persons as plaintiffs filed another suit No. 263 of 1964 before the same Courtagainst the same defendant claiming similar reliefs. The second mentioned suit started as a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am told that by some subsequent consent order, the suit has been confined to the named plaintiffs therein.2. On 17-4-1967, the plaintiffs in the earlier suit (Respondents in this petition) filed an application praying that:'the plaintiffs may be given liberty to withdraw the suit with permission to file another suit with liberty to plaintiffs to include themselves as plaintiffs in O.S. 263 of 1964.'In the affidavit in support...
Tag this Judgment!Nagreddy Vs. Khandappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant166; AIR1970Mys166; ILR1969KAR460; (1970)1MysLJ134
Tukol, J.1. The sole question that arises in this writ petition for our decision is, whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is applicable to an application filed before the Munsiff under Rule 17 of the Mysore Village Panchayat (Election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1959, to be hereinafter/ referred to as the 'Rules.'2. The election for the post of the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Kollur in Chincholi Taluk, District Gulbarga, was held on 24-7-1968 and the results were published on 24-7-1968, itself, declaring that the present petitioner was duly elected as Chairman, Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition No. 13/68 before the Munsiff at Chincholi on 2-8-1968. The present petitioner opposed that application on the ground that there as a delay of two days in filing the petition and that the petition was liable to be dismissed as barred by time. The Munsiff took the view that the petitioner before him was under a bona fide belief that a copy of the declar...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Srinivasan Vs. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant238; AIR1970Mys238; (1970)1MysLJ343
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The principal question that arises for determination in this petition is whether in the same cadre it is permissible to provide a method of promotion for some posts, different from the method of promotion for the remaining posts in that cadre. It is contended for the petitioner that such different methods of promotion in the same cadre, are offensive to 'equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. In the Central Excise Department, up to the year 1959, 50% of the vacancies in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks (hereinafter referred to as U. D. Clerks) were filled by direct recruitment. On the recommendation of the Pay Commission, direct recruitment to the cadre of U. D. Clerks was discontinued and all the posts of U. D. Clerks are filled by promotion of Lower Division Clerks (hereinafter referred to as L. D. Clerks). 3. In 1962 the Government of India decided that 25% of the ports of U. D. Clerks should be set apart for being filled on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Shariyat Ali Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant112; AIR1970Mys112
Narayana Pai, J.1. This is a writ petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the State Government for fixing the pay of the petitioner on promotion as Inspecting Officer in the Department of Indian Medicine with effect from 23-9-1958 in the pay scale of Rs. 350-600 OS equal to Rs. 250 to 550 IG. 2. The petitioner is an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to the New State of Mysore. At the time of allotment upon the Reorganisation of the States Act, i.e., 1-11-1956, he was holding the position of Mustanad Attiba on a pay scale of Rs. 205 to 450 OS, equivalent to Rs. 176 to 375 IG. After reorganisation, he was promoted as Inspecting Officer on 23-9-1958. The claim of the petitioner is that because the said promotion was the first promotion after he got allotted to this State, he was entitled to the pay scale attached to the post of Hakeem Class II of his parent State of Hyderabad as that would have been the post to which he would have been promoted had ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Krishna Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR526(KAR); [1970]75ITR526(Karn)
ORDER1. The question referred under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1964-65 ?' 2. Briefly stated the facts are : One Krishnaswamy Naidu along with his two sons, C. Krishna Prasad (the assessee) and C. Krishna Kumar, formed a Hindu undivided family upto October 30, 1958, when there was a partition between Krishnaswamy Naidu and his two sons. In the said partition, the assessee got some house properties and vacant sites. The partition was recognised by the department and an order under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was passed recognising the partition as from November 1, 1958. 3. On the date of partition and also during the relevant period, i.e., the year ending on March 31, 1964, the assessee was unmarried. The assessee filled a return for the assessment year 1964-65 showing his status as an individu...
Tag this Judgment!V. Lakkanna Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant198; AIR1970Mys198; (1969)2MysLJ517
Kalagate, J. 1. This Revision Petition has been referred to us under the Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 by Narayana Pai, J., since it involved a question of public importance.2. The question is whether the debt due to the State of Mysore which hereinafter will be referred to as 'the State' from one A.G. Mabon had a priority over the judgment-debt due to the petitioner from the same judgment-debtor. It arrives in this way.3. The State represented by the Additional Director of Industries and Commerce in Mysore, Bangalore, filed O. S, No. 84 of 1955 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore against the defendant A. G. Mabon to recover Rs. 7,580.59 P. the value of Iron materials supplied to him from his factory and obtained a decree against him.4. On January 21, 1963, it filed Execution Case No. 23 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, which later on was received in the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, by transfer...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Annaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR582(KAR); [1970]76ITR582(Karn)
1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question of law referred for our opinion are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice dated October 7, 1964, issued under section 274(1) with section 271(1)(a) by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee, and the penalty proceeding as well as the order in pursuance there of are valid in law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty leviable within the meaning of section 271(1)(a)(i) shall be with reference to the gross tax as reduced by the advance tax and self-assessment-tax under section 140A and remaining due and payable due and payable, at the date of final assessment ?' 2. The assessee by notice dated March 6, 1964, issued under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was required to file his return of income for the assessment year 1964-65, on or before the 15th ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›