Karnataka Court January 1971 Judgments
Ganapathi Subbaraya Hegde Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR523(KAR); [1972]84ITR523(Karn); (1971)2MysLJ266
Govinda Bhat, J.1. These writ petitions preferred by a common assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act', are directed against three orders of rectification made under section 37 in respect of the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. 2. The first petitioner, Ganapathy Subbaraya Hegde, is the elder brother of the third respondent Narayana Subbaraya Hegde. After the Act came into force, the petitioner as well as the third respondent were assessed separately and they were treated as two separate Hindu undivided families. Two assessments were made on the petitioner as well as the third respondent for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. 3. On July 17, 1969, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, North Kanara, Sirsi (respondent No. 2), issued a notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent under section 37 of the Act, proposing to rectify the separate assessment for 1964-65 made on the petitioner as well as the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Hayagriv and anr. Vs. Mysore Silk Museum Regd. Partnership Firm, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant227; AIR1971Mys227; (1971)1MysLJ322
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (herein referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 118 of 1966, reversing the decision of the Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, in H. R. C. No. 197 of 1964 in a proceeding for eviction of the respondent.2. The petitioners are the partners of a firm called Messrs. C. Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons, carrying on the business of Jewellery and silverware in the Commercial Street, Civil Station, Bangalore. The respondent-firm Messrs. Mysore Silk Museum, is occupying the schedule premises as a tenant of the petitioners, who brought an action for eviction on lie ground that consequent on. the coming into force of the Gold Control Order in 1963 and other circumstances, their Jewellery business had diminished, to such an extent that it became absolutely necessary for one of them to turn to another ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Mudvedkar and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant202; AIR1971Mys202; (1971)1MysLJ188
Venkataramiah, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing the for notifications, S. O. Nos. 2206 to 2209 dated 17-10-1970 issued by the Government of Mysore in exercise of the powers vested in it under the provisions of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) establishing a Court of Civil Judge At Haveri and another at Gadag, both in the District of Dharwar, and fixing the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Courts. The petitioners are 24 in number, of whom petitioners Nos. 1 to 22 and 24 are Advocates practising either at Dharwar or at Hubli and petitioner No. 23 is a litigant, whose cases are pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dharwar. Respondent 1 is the State or Mysore; respondent No. 2 is the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Mysore; and respondents 3 to S6 were impleaded as Respondents by an ord...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Harinath Upadyaya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant215; AIR1971Mys215; (1971)1MysLJ280
ORDERD.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The question that arises for determination in this petition is whether in a suit for partition brought by a purchaser of the undivided interest of a coparcener in joint family property, a fixed court-fee is payable under Sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), or whether ad valorem Court-fee is payable under Sub-section (1) of that Section, on the market value of the plaintiff's share. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff purchased in a Court auction the undivided interest of a coparcener in suit properties which are joint family properties. In the plaint his main prayer is for a decree for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and for possession of his share therein. He has alleged in the plaint that he obtained possession of such undivided share under Order 21, Rule 96, Civil Procedure Code. He paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 35...
Tag this Judgment!Venkat Reddy Vs. Budenna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant308; AIR1971Mys308; (1971)1MysLJ317
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is defendant-1 in the trial Court and the plaintiff is respondent-1 in this Court. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiff applied for an order of temporary injunction in the trial Court. The trial Court did not grant its order of temporary injunction. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge, Raichur, granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In this revision, the petitioner (defendant-1) challenges the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge.2. The plaintiff's case Is that the suit properties are owned by Sri Raghavendraswami Mutt and that he has been a tenant of the suit schedule properties for a number of years. He continued to be in possession of the lands even after March 1970 and had raised crops on the suit schedule lands. As defendant-1 began to int...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Abdul Kader Saheb and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1477
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners, who were accused 1 to 5 in C.C.No. 476 of 1968 before the Additional Munsiff-cum-Magistrate, Coondapur, have been convicted for having committed offences punishable Under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and. Section 24 of the Mysore Cattle Trespass Act, 1966, and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- on each count and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a month. They challenge the legality and correctness of the said conviction.2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows:-In the afternoon of 2-84968 the complainant Nagappa (P.W. 1) went to his field and found that a cow belonging to A. 1 and A. 2 had trespassed into the field and was grazing his paddy crop. He brought a rope and took the assistance of his neighbours who have also their lands in the neighbourhood and tried to catch hold of the cow. After he caught the cow, the cow laid down on the ground and refused to get up. Ul...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Hirematt and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant229; AIR1971Mys229
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Writ Petition raises the question of seniority between the petitioners and respondents 8 to 12. The petitioners are direct recruits whereas respondents 3 to 12 are promotees to the cadre of Munsiffs in the judicial Service of the State.2. Recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs is regulated by the Rules called 'Mysore Munsiffs' (Recruitment) Rules, 1958' (hereinafter called the 'Recruitment Rules'), made by the Governor of Mysore in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 3 provides two methods of recruitment to the cadre of the Munsiffs (a) by a competitive examination, and (b) by promotion of persons in service in the High Court and courts subordinate to the High Court. For these two methods of appointments vacancies are classified under Rule 8 (2) of the Recruitment Rules, which states that out of every six vacancies to be filled, five shall be filled by candidates selected by a competitive...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Manjappa and ors. Vs. Kalyani Pujarthy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant350; AIR1971Mys350; (1971)1MysLJ367
Honniah, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Udipi, on I. A. No. I in Original Suit No. 2 of 1966. The plaintiffs had obtained a preliminary decree for partition and possession of their share in the suit schedule properties. They filed an application (I.A. No. I) for passing a final decree and determination of the income of the suit properties etc. as per the terms of the preliminary decree passed on 31-1-1968. Pursuant to this application, a Commissioner was appointed by the court below to divide the immoveable properties by metes and bounds with reference to the respective shares of the parties. Accordingly, the Commissioner prepared 7 lists and submitted the lists along with his report to the court. Some of the parties including the appellants, filed objections to the Commissioner's report and to the division of properties as contained in the said lists.The court below, without going into the merits of the case and without applying its mind to the ques...
Tag this Judgment!Talari Erappa Vs. Muthyalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant31; AIR1972Mys31; (1971)2MysLJ164
Honniah, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a decree declaring his title to the suit schedule properties, for recovery of possession from the defendants and for recovery of mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of the suit schedule properties to him.2. The facts that have given rise to this appeal are briefly thus: The plaintiff is a Hindu governed bv the law of Mithakshara. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to one Singarappa. paternal grand-father of the plaintiff and after his death, his son Peddanna, Hanumanthappa. Karappa, Honnurappa, Vasanthappa (father of the plaintiff) succeeded to the properties and held the same as joint family properties. The plaintiff's father and his brothers lived as members of a joint Hindu.family. The other brothers of Vasanthappa died issueless leaving behind them Vasanthappa and the plaintiff as the only surviving co-parceners. The plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Paper Mills Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1971
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT91(Kar)
G.K. Govinda Bhat, J.1. This writ petition preferred by West Coast Paper Mills Limited, Dandeli, is directed against the demand notices issued by Respondent No. 1 assessing offset printing paper over 85 grams for the period between November, 1963 and December, 1965 at the rate applicable to cartridge paper and also the order of adjudication made by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bellary (Respondent No. 2) which was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (Respondent No. 3) on appeal and by the Government of India (Respondent No. 4) in revision.2. In order to appreciate the contentions urged by the petitioner, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts leading to this writ petition. West Coast Paper Mills Limited., Dandeli manufactures paper in its factory at Dandeli. Paper manufactured in India is chargeable to excise duty under Section 3 read with Item No. 17 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the 'Act'. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »