Karnataka Court November 1971 Judgments
Patil Irangowda Bhimangowda Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharw ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR636(KAR); [1973]87ITR636(Karn)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. This matter arises under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The petitioner is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1966-67 he did not file his return of income despite notice by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharwar (respondent No. 1). Thereafter, the first respondent proposed to make a best of judgment assessment and for that purpose issued a proposition notice wherein he gave the particulars of the crops grown by the petitioner during the relevant accounting period. To the proposition notice also, the petitioner did not file any objections. On November 16, 1968, a pleader by name, M.H. Chouta, appeared before the first respondent and produced his vakalath and made his application for an adjournment on the ground that the assessee had not obtained the necessary documents till then. That request was rejected. However, the case was posted for hearing with regard to the making of assessment under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Shivadatta Vs. the Selection Committee to Govt. Medical College a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant135; AIR1972Mys135
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, after passing the Pre-UniversityExamination of the University of Mysore held in March-April 1971. sought admission to the pre-professional course leading to M. B. B. S.. in one of the Medical Colleges in the State. He claimed one of the seats reserved for political sufferers under Rule 4 (1) (h) of the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'. His claim for the reserved seat was admitted by the Selection Committee-respondent No. 1, who by Memo dated 15-9-1971 intimated to the petitioner that he has been provisionally selected for admission to the Medical College, Mysore. The petitioner was directed to join the college on or before 25th of September 1971 by 5-30 p. m. paying the necessary fees, failing which he was informed that the seat allotted to him will be forfeited.The petitioner had joined the 1st year B. Sc., Degree course in the Yuva-raja's College at Mysore before he had made the app...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rangappa Reddy Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant219; AIR1972Mys219
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. Third respondent Rangavilas Motor Transport. Krishnagiri held an inter-State carriage permit to operate a service from Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu to Bangalore in Mysore State. It applied to the Regional Transport Authority at Dharmapuri for a variation of the permit by adding another round trip and as required by the rules, added to its application a schedule of proposed timings. The Transport Authority at Dharmapuri granted the application. According to practice, the question of timings was considered at a subsequent date by the Secretary of the Transport Authority, at which, after hearing all persons Including the petitioner, a modified schedule of timings was assigned to the additional round trip permitted by the variation.2. The third respondent thereafter applied to the State Transport Authority at Bangalore for counter-signature. Counter-signature has been granted. The same has been confirmed upon appeal by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal.3. In this Writ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjashetty and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant138; AIR1972Mys138; (1972)1MysLJ151
Malimath, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the Mysore Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order 1971 and the Notification bearing No. S. O. 177 dated 27th January 1971 issued under the said order. Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government is competent to issue orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein, if it is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, for maintaining or increasing supplies of essential commodities or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government, by notified order, can empower the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government to exercise its powers under Section 3, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the direction. The Central Government empowered the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Krishnaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ854
ORDERS.R. Range Gowda, J.1. The common question which arises for decision in these two cases is whether an accused person can be remanded to custody for a period beyond 15 days of his arrest without a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) being filed, and it has arisen in the following circumstances: 2. On 31-8-1971 at about 6-30 p. m. the Station House Officer of the Rajajinagar Police Station. Bangalore, received a telephone message from one M. Kemparamaiah, Deputy Vigilance and Security Officer. B. E.. M. L., Bangalore to the effect that his daughter Kamalamma who was married to the respondent herein, was found murdered in his (respondent's) house on the same evening. A written complaint also immediately followed the said message. and it was received at about 8 p. m. on the same day in the said Police Station. On receipt of the same, the Station House Officer registered a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code...
Tag this Judgment!J.V. Jahagirdar Vs. S.L. Bijali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant221; AIR1972Mys221; (1972)1MysLJ207
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order made in the proceedings for resumption of land under Section 14 (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act (shortly called the Act).2. The petitioner is a co-sharer having two annas share in the land R. S. No. 234 which is in the possession of the respondent-tenant. He filed a statement under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of his share in the land. The Land Tribunal held that the petitioner without impleading the other co-sharers could not resume his share and it further held that if the resumption was permitted it would leave a fragment. The appeal preferred against this order was dismissed by the District Judge for the reason that the other co-sharers are necessary parties to the proceedings.3. The sole question for consideration is whether one of the co-sharers can file a statement for resumption of his share without impleading the other co-sharers as parties to the proceedings.4. Section 14 (1) provides tha...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Kudva and anr. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant204; AIR1972Mys204; (1972)1MysLJ360
1. These appeals under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are from the common order dated 2-7-1969, of the Employees' State Insurance Court at Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the E. S. I. Court) in Applications (ESI) Nos. 6 and 9 of 1968.2. The period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Section 82 of the Act, is 60 days. There is a delay of 670 days in filing these appeals. The appellants who are common in both these appeals, have made an application. I. A.I. In each of these appeals praying for condonation of such delay. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to appeals under Section 82 of the Act.3. In support of the applications for condonation of delay, the Counsel who appeared for the appellants in the E. S. I. Court, has filed affidavits in which he has stated, inter alia, thus: In the light of the decisions which held the field at the time the E. S. I. Court rendered its decision, h...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Jetty Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant175; AIR1972Mys175; (1972)1MysLJ40
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This matter is posted for orders as to the correct calculation of process fee and postal charges to be paid in cases where service is sought to be effected on a government servant through the head of his department.2. Ordinarily service has to be made directly on the Government servant impleaded as the respondent either through personal service like summons in a suit or through pre-paid registered post.3. Where large number of Government servants are impleaded as respondents and difficulty is felt by the petitioner in tracing their correct address (because government servants are liable for transfer) provision is made under Rule 5-A of Chapter XIII of the Mysore High Court Rules for effecting service on government servants through the head of the department. The said rule reads:--'5-A. When the service is to be effected on a government servant, the court may, on an application made for the purpose, direct that the notice shall be sent to such government servant thr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa and ors. Vs. Yellappa Gundappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant176; AIR1972Mys176
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This Writ Petition preferred by a landlord arises out of his application for resumption of land made under Section 14(1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1901, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The petitioner hereinafter called 'the landlord' is the owner of an agricultural land bearing survey No. 52 measuring 29 acres and 10 guntas of Lingadhal village of Bijapur District. He filed the application for resumption from the 1st respondent hereinafter called 'the tenant' who resisted the application on the ground, inter alia, that the landlord does not bona fide require the land for cultivating personally because he carries on money lending and provision business and that the purpose of resumption is to sell the resumed land at a higher price. The land Tribunal, Badami accepted the contention of the tenant that the landlord carries on money-lending and provision business and rejected the application for resumption on the ground that the landlord does not bona fide require th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›