Karnataka Court November 1970 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.
Devendra Basappa Doddannavar Vs. Smt. Sonubai Tuljansa Kosandal and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant217; AIR1971Mys217; (1971)1MysLJ245
K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 403 of 1962 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, is the appellant. He filed his suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. This agreement is dated 20-8-1959 and marked Exhibit 49. His case is that according to the agreement, the sale transaction had to be completed within two months from the date of the agreement. The time was extended by 15 days more i.e., upto 26th October, 1959. On 26th October, 1959, the plaintiff alleges that he waited for the defendants to complete the transaction. But, they did not do so. Therefore, he sent a telegram on 26-10-1959 and followed it up with a letter informing the defendants on the plaintiffs willingness to take the sale-deed and calling upon them to execute the deed. The telegram and the letter did not fetch any reply. But, on 9-11-1959, a telegram marked Exhibit 55 was sent by the defendants stating that the plaintiff did not complete the sale deed and t...
Channagiri Rangappa and Sons Vs. the District Magistrate, Chitradurga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant244; AIR1971Mys244; (1971)1MysLJ60
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioner had applied to the District Magistrate, for grant of a 'No objection' certificate to construct a permanent cinema theatre on a site owned by him in Davangere City. By his order embodied in the Endorsement dated 29-10-1966 (Exhibit B). the District Magistrate rejected his application. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said order of the District Magistrate. He has also prayed for quashing the order of the Government dated 26-10-1966 (Exhibit H) directing that his application for grant of a 'No Objection' certificate should be rejected, He has further prayed for a mandamus directing the District Magistrate (respondent 1) to issue him a 'No Objection' certificate.2. The principal contention of Mr. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the order of the District Magistrate declining to grant a 'No Objection' certificate to the petitioner, is unsustainable, as...
Deepchand Vs. Hansaraj Sait
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant322; AIR1971Mys322; (1971)1MysLJ296
V.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar in Regular Appeal No. 151 of 1961, modifying the decree passed by the Munsiff at Kolar Gold Fields in Original Suit No. 304 of 1960. The respondent-plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that he is the owner of the vacant site shown as A, B, X, E, F and equal right in the common wall marked BF in the plaint sketch and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the window newly put up in the upstairs facing the open space and the drain draining out the water from the defendant's building falling on the open space The plaintiff and the defendant have purchased the adjoining properties, from the common owners Venkatalakshmiah Setty and his two brothers. The property purchased by the plaintiff is shown as A, X. C. D, E, M, in the plaint sketch. The property purchased by the defendant is shown as B G L K H F. The properties in question are situate in Bangarpet t...
Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR509(KAR); [1971]81ITR509(Karn); (1971)1MysLJ36
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), has challenged the provisional assessment made for the assessment year 1969-70 and the proceedings taken for recovery of the tax so assessed. For the assessment year 1969-70, the petitioner filed a return on 30th May, 1969, showing a net profit of Rs. 2,61,585. In arriving at the net profits, the petitioner had claimed certain deductions. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bellary (respondent No. 4), issued a notice on November 22, 1969, stating that he proposed to disallow a sum of Rs. 1,99,017 claimed as deduction by the petitioner and to make a provisional assessment on the income of Rs. 4,60,602. Overruling the objections raised by the petitioner to the said proposal, the 4th respondent made a provisional assessment order on February 21, 1970, assessing a tax of Rs. 1,25,606. The notice of demand which ought to have followed the provisional asse...
Garagiah Vs. Manche Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant178; AIR1971Mys178; (1971)1MysLJ53
ORDERG.K. Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The question that arisesfor decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the right to make anapplication under Section 95 of the Codeof Civil Procedure arises on the datewhen the order of injunction is granted.The matter arises in this way. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 624of 1963 on the file of the Court of theMunsiff, Ramanagaram and the respondent was the defendant in the said suit.In the said suit, the plaintiff obtainedan order of temporary injunction againstthe defendant on 16-12-1963. That orderwas dissolved on 24-10-1964 in the appeal preferred by the defendant. Thesuit after trial was dismissed on 23-8-1966. There was no appeal against thedecree dismissing the suit. ____2. On 20-3-1967 the defendant filed I. A. No. 15 under Section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the Court of the Munsiff, Ramanagaram for compensation on the following two grounds: (i) that the temporary injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds...
B. Padmanabha Baliga and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR126(KAR); [1971]82ITR126(Karn); (1971)1MysLJ38
Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. Common arguments were addressed in these writ petitions because the question of law raised is the same and facts are similar. They could also be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. As facts are similar, it would be sufficient to make a detailed reference to the facts of only one of them, namely, Writ Petition No. 484 of 1966. 3. The petitioner, Padmanabha Baliga, therein who joined service in the income-tax department as a steno-typist was at the relevant period an upper division clerk. He also appeared for and passed departmental test prescribed for eligibility for promotion to the cadre of income-tax inspectors. The examination of cases for promotion to the said higher cadre was periodically done by a committee called the departmental promotions committee of which the Commissioner of Income-tax is a member. The said committee at one of its sittings, having considered the cases of several people including the petitioner, recommended the promotion of re...
P. Balchand Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Fourth Circle, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC400(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. Messrs Hindusthan Jewellery Mart, Bangalore, a partnership firm - in which the petitioner was a partner - was assessed to tax of Rs. 12,612.60 for the year 1967-68 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The said firm failed to pay the tax assessed and demanded. Thereupon the respondent issued a notice under section 14 of the Act to Messrs Hindusthan Drug House, Bangalore, which is another partnership firm in which the petitioner is a partner. The petitioner represented to the respondent that monies due to him from Messrs Hindusthan Drug House cannot be recovered towards the tax arrears of Messrs Hindusthan Jewellery Mart under section 14 of the Act and therefore the notice dated 8th February, 1968, may be withdrawn. The respondent having refused to accede to the said request, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that section 14(1) of the...
Chikkahanuma Vs. Smt. Venkatamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant167; AIR1971Mys167; (1971)1MysLJ145
V.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by the 1st plaintiff against the Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar, in R. A. No. 115/1961, modifying the decree passed by the Munsiff, Kolar, in O. S. No. 29/1960. Respondent 3 in the Second appeal has also filed his cross-objections in so far as the decree by the Civil Judge has gone against him.2. The suit relates to three items of properties. The suit is for a declaration of the title of plaintiff-1 and possession in respect of items 2 and 3. In respect of item 1, the suit is for a declaration of title of both the plaintiffs and for possession. The plaintiffs had previously filed O. S. No. 351/1959 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the first item of suit schedule property only. The plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to Institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. The court granted permission on the 14th of December, 1959 subject to the condition that ...
Mangilal Vs. J. Chandramouli Sastry
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant181; AIR1971Mys181; (1971)1MysLJ101
E.S. Venkataramaiah, J.1. The only ground urged by Sri Appa Rao, the learned Advocate for the appellant in this appeal is that the decree passed on 24-2-1968 in O. S. No. 163/1 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Shorapur was not executable. The decree in question reads as follows:--'It is ordered and decreed that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 63415-00 along with interest at the rate of Rupees 3% per annum from the date of the suit till the realisation of the amount to the plaintiff. Given under my hand and the seal the Court this 24th day of February, 1968. Sd/- Munsiff. Shorapur.'A memorandum of cost is also attached to the decree. The contention of Sri Appa Rao is that the decree is not in conformity with the form prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for the preparation of a money decree, viz.. Form No. 1 in Appendix D of the Code of Civil Procedure, The prescribed form reads thus:'This suit coming on this day for final disposal before .....in the presence of.....for the...
Shri Venkataramanaswami Permanent Bhandar Ltd. Vs. Ijari Padmarajappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant182; AIR1971Mys182; (1971)1MysLJ131
K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. The appellant-decree-holder obtained a decree on 22-4-1955 against the respondents-judgment-debtors in O. S. No. 138/55 on the file of the District Munsiff, Hospet, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,277-10-0. The decree-holder has sued out execution for the recovery of Rs. 4,049-45 paise in E. P. No. 138/65 before the Munsiff at Harapanahalli. The judgment-debtors amongst other objections, contended that present execution petition i.e., E. P. No. 138/65 filed on 15-8-1965 is barred by time. It may be mentioned that the decree-holder had sued out execution in E. P. No. 670/57 and that was dismissed on 16-4-1958. The second application was made on 7-10-1960 and came to be dismissed on 5-12-1960. The next application was on 6-7-1962 and came to be dismissed on 26-8-1963. There was an intermediate application registered as E. P. 95/64 which was filed in a Court which the decree-holder thought as having jurisdiction to execute the decree without obtaining tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »