Karnataka Court August 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.
Govinda Naik Gurunath Naik Vs. Gururao Puttanbhat Kadekar Since Deceas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant330; AIR1971Mys330; (1971)1MysLJ43
Honniah, J. 1. This is a Defendant's appeal. The defendant became the owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of his adoption to his adoptive father Gurunath Naik in 1933. Even prior to the adoption, the plaintiff was a tenant of a portion of the left wing of the property situated in Durgada Bail in Hubli Town belonging to Defendant's adoptive father. When the defendant was about 18 years of age he began to manage the properties and thereafter also the plaintiff continued to be a tenant of a portion in the left wing of the plaint schedule properties. In about the year 1945-46 the Defendant thought of demolishing both the left and right wings of the building as it had developed serious cracks in the walls and putting up a new construction. As the defendant was in need of money he borrowed from the plaintiff on Promissory Notes Exts. 94 to 97 a sum of Rupees 35,000/- in all at six per cent, interest per annum. Then on. 17-6-1949 the Defendant executed a deed of simple mortgage, E...
G. Mahadevappa and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR598(KAR); [1971]81ITR598(Karn)
Venkataswami, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', has referred the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 75,000 levied under section 28(1) (c) is valid and justified in law ?' The facts leading up to the reference may be briefly stated : The assessee is a firm, dealing in kapas (unginned cotton), among other things, with its head office at Davangere and a branch at Hubli. It purchases kapas and, after ginning, sells as lint. During the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1956-57, considerable disparity was noticed in the results disclosed in respect of trading in kapas and cotton at Davangere and Hubli. On a closer examination of accounts, the Income-tax Officer found that on the last day of the accounting year, ending on November 14, 1955, a sum of Rs. 4,87,973 had been credited to the account of one Sharanappa, the kapas account. This amount was clai...
G.V.B. Naidu Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant1; AIR1971Mys1; (1970)2MysLJ296
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The principal question in these two writ petitions is one of seniority as between G. V. B. Naidu, the petitioner in both the Writ petitions on the one hand, and respondents 2 to 10 in Writ petition 2505 of 1970 on the other. The petitions came to be filed in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner and the nine respondents, mentioned above are officers serving in the Department of Agriculture of the State Government. The respondents were directly recruited on 30th August, 1950 for appointment as Assistant Directors of Agriculture. After completion of the probationary period they were appointed as Assistant Directors of Agriculture on 26th June, 1952. It is stated that though the said respondents have been declared to have satisfactorily completed their probation, there is no specific order of confirmation. These respondents will hereinafter be referred to as direct recruits or probationers.3. The petitioner was already in service in the agriculture Department. ...
Mushtaque and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1970
Reported in: [1972]84ITR561(KAR); [1972]84ITR561(Karn)
1. The assessee in this case, M/s. Mushtaque and Company. Davangere, had been refused registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the element of agency which is an essential ingredient to constitute a valid partnership was absent in this case. The assessment year involved is 1962-62. The corresponding accounting period was the year ended March 31, 1962. The instrument of partnership produced before the authorities was dated March 30, 1962, and the partnership was deemed to have come into operation with effect from April 1, 1961. The Constitution of the partnership in terms of the aforesaid deed was as under : 1. Sri C. R. Sayyad Hafeez Saheb,managing partner 1/2 share.2. Sri Abdul Warris Saheb, 1/6th share from 1-4-61 to10-6-61;1/4 share from 11-6-61 to31-1-62;1/6th share from 1-2-62.3. Sri Sayyad Abdulla Saheb, 1/6th share from 1-4-61 to10-6-61;1/4th share from 11-6-61 to31-1-62;1/6th share from 1-2-62.4. Smt. Fatimbhai (died on 10-6-61) From 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›