Karnataka Court May 1971 Judgments
Frank L.J. Lobo Vs. Piad Pinto Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant133; AIR1972Mys133; (1971)2MysLJ530
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition. He filed Small Cause Suit No. 119 of 1967 in the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore for recovering a sum of Rs. 707.20 being the balance of the amount due to him from the defendant towards the payment of the arrears of rent for the years 1961-62. 1962-63 and 1963-64.2. The defendant resisted the suit on several grounds. It was stated that the claim was barred by limitation, that on account of the deposit of rentals in the Fair Rent Petition 7 of 1965, the claim of the plaintiff was unsustainable and that the plaintiff had no cause of action at all and finally the suit was barred by estoppel.3. The learned II Additional Civil Judge took the view that the suit was in time, but held that as the plaintiff has accepted the payment of rent in Fair Rent Petition 7 of 1965, the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit. In that view, he dismissed the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Selection Committee for Admission to the Medical and Dental Colleg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant44; AIR1972Mys44
Chandrashekhar, J.1. Does overlooking a binding decision. constitute a ground for reviewing a judgment or order of a Court? That is the question that arises for decision in this review petition.2. This is a petition for review of our order in W. P. No 3789 of 1970. The petitioner herein is the Selection Committee for admission to Government Medical Colleges (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Committee) which was the respondent in the Writ Petition, For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will hereinafter be referred to with reference to their respective positions in the Writ petition.3. The question that arose for decision in the Writ petition, was whether the petitioner who belongs to Meda Community and was a resident of Kolar District, could be regarded as belonging to Scheduled Tribes for whom certain seats are reserved for admission to Government Medical Colleges in Mysore State. In the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 1950, issued by the President under Articl...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Suryanarayana Setty Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC289(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. This is a revision petition under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act, preferred by the assessee and it relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The petitioner was assessed for the year ending 30th June, 1965, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 84,728.58 by assessment order dated 11th October, 1965. The said taxable turnover included a turnover of Rs. 43,700 representing the sale of 'jute hand-bags' on which tax was levied at one per cent. taking the view that 'jute hand-bags' come under the category of 'gunny bags' and as such liable to be taxed at the rate applicable to the goods specified in the second proviso to section 5(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessing authority, taking a different view, took proceedings under section 12-A of the Act to reopen the assessment and assess the turnover of Rs. 43,700 at two per cent. under section 5(1) of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the assessing authority came to the conclusi...
Tag this Judgment!V.M.K. Marimuthu Nadar Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MysLJ209; [1971]28STC218(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. These are three revision petitions preferred by an assessee under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act, and they relate to the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee sold in the course of inter-State trade gingelly seeds purchased in the State of Mysore. In respect of some of the purchases the assessee was the first purchaser and in respect of the rest, the second purchaser. Gingelly seeds are declared goods in respect of which a single point tax is levied under section 5(4) of the Act. The assessee's turnovers as second purchaser with which we are concerned were as follows :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------Year Turnover as second purchaser------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1963-64 Rs. 4,60,180.94 1964-65 Rs. 3,11,183.41 1965-66 Rs. 2,42,442.67 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. The asse...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Eswaran and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR812(KAR); [1972]86ITR812(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. These are two revision petitions preferred by two assesses who are brother under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The short question that arise in both these revision petitions is whether the provisions of section 12(e) and (g) read wiith section 3(2) of the Act are applicable in the matter of assessment to super-tax under Chapter VII-A of the Act. 2. The assessments relate to the assessment year 1966-67. The petitioners claimed rebate of income-tax as well as super-tax on the life insurance premia paid and donations made under section 3(2) read with section 12(e) and (g) of the Act. They were allowed rebate of income-tax but such rebate was disallowed on the super-tax. 3. Section 53A levies an additional tax referred to as super-tax on the total agricultural income of the previous year of any person at the rate or rates laid down in Part I-A of the Schedule of the Act. Section 53B states that the total agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. V. Ramachandra Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR703(KAR); [1972]84ITR703(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The assessee was a member of a Hindu undivided family. He had acquired by his personal exertions a good deal of property both movable and immovable. By a deed dated November 16, 1963, the assessee declared two of his self-acquired properties to the properties of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his three sons and his wife and by the same deed one of the properties known as 'Ashok Hotel' was partitioned among the members of the family. The Gift-tax Officer, Hubli, called upon the assessee to file a return under the Act. The assessee filed a return showing nil gift but declared Rs. 86,953 in Annexure 'I'. The assessee contended before the Gift-tax Officer that the unilateral declaration of a Hindu coparcener, whereby he throws his self-acquired property into the common stock of joint family property does not amount to a transfer so as to attract the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›