Karnataka Court May 1972 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Balanoor Tea and Rubber Co. Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR115(KAR); [1974]93ITR115(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The learned judge set out the statement of the case which ran as follows] - The assessee is a public limited company which owns tea. Coffee and rubber plantations. The assessee further manufactures plastic bags and polythene pipes that are used for spraying, etc. The assessment year is 1966-67 for which the corresponding account year is the year ended March 31, 1966. 2. The assessee claimed a deduction of an amount equal to 8% of the profits which were attributable in respect of an activity mentioned in The 5th Schedule to section 80E of the Income-tax Act. 3. The profits attributable to the business of tea plantation amounted to Rs. 1,18,214. On this amount the assessee claimed a deduction equal to 8%. The relief claimed by the assessee worked out to Rs. 9,457. As against this the Income-tax Officer, however, allowed only a sum of Rs. 5,608. The relief as claimed by the assessee and the relief admissible as per Income-tax Officer is as unde : ----------------------...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Venkataswamy and ors. Vs. Mir Zahid HussaIn Saheb (Sha) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant145; AIR1973Mys145
Venkataramiah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the decree passed in O. S. No. 5 of 1964 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge at Bangalore. The above suit was originally instituted as O. S. No. 2 of 1958 on the file of the District Judge. Civil Station at Bangalore and on reorganization of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under the Maysore Civil Courts Act. 1964. the suit stood transferred to the file of the First Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The plaintiffs who are three in number claiming to be the trustees of a trust known as 'Kulsum Bibi Trust' instituted the above suit for recovery of three items of immovable properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint. Items 1 and 2 are two buildings and Item 3 is a vacant site situated in that part of Bangalore City which was formerly known as Civil and Military Station. Bangalore. The case of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Peer Khwaja Mod,...
Tag this Judgment!Hirachand Vs. Syed Basheeruddin
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant151; AIR1973Mys151; (1972)2MysLJ281
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the defendant in O. S. No. 93/1 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff at Aland. It is directed against the judgment and decree, decreeing, the suit, made by the Civil Judge. Gulbarga, in R. A. No. 514 of 1964. That appeal had been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, dismissing the suit.2. The material facts, briefly stated, are as follows:-- The plaintiff sued for a declaration of his easementary right over a 'Saraband' belonging to the Government, It is his case that he has been using the 'Sarband' to walk up to his land for over 30 to 35 years and that the appellant herein obstructed such right of way by constructing an 'Ami' across it. The case of the appellant-defendant is that there was no such right end a declaration of such an easementary right cannot be granted in the absence of the Government as a party.3. The trial Court, while holding that the plaintiff had established the alleged user for a p...
Tag this Judgment!L.R. Saldhana Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant307; AIR1972Mys307
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. 10 acres of Government land in survey number 129 of Byredevara village of Koppa Taluk was purchased by the petitioner L. R. Saldhana in a revenue auction sale held on 18-11-1947. Saguvali chit pursuant to the sale was issued in favour of the petitioner and he was put in possession. According to the petitioner, there are small pockets of Government lands in Survey Nos. 130, 131, 133, 134 and 136 of the said Byredevaru village interspersed between the lands of the petitioner. In the bona fide belief that the said pockets which measured 10 acres and 34 guntas formed part of his holding, he raised coffee and cardamom plants on the said lands. In about 1955, the Revenue Officers came to know of the said encroachment made by the petitioner and steps were taken to levy and collect T. T. fine and also to evict him. Thereupon, he applied on 31-3-1959 to the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere. Sub-Division setting out the above facts pralines for stopping the eviction proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Shivaji Rao Kore and ors. Vs. Rukminiyamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant113; AIR1973Mys113
1. This appeal arises out of the decree passed in O. S. No. 35 of 1964 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge. Mysore.The facts of the case are these: One D. Venketarao Kore (Defendant 1) had two sons M. V. Shivaji Rao and Shankara Rao. Shankara Rao, died in the year 1957 leaving behind him his widow Rukminiyamma. the plaintiff in the above suit and his mother Venkubai as his heirs. After the death of Shankara Rao. Rukminiyamma continued to live with the members of the family of her husband till about 1960. In 1960 she went out of the family of her husband and issued a notice to the 1st defendant calling upon him to divide the properties of the joint family by metes and bounds and to deliver possession of the share to which she was entitled on the death of her husband in the year 1957, Since the demand made in the said notice was, not complied with, she instituted a suit in forma pauperis in Miscellaneous No. 240 of 1960 on the file of the District Judge. Mysore, on 29-10-1960. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamappa Bhimappa and ors. Vs. Pralhad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant335; AIR1972Mys335
B. Venkataswami, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal. It is directed against the judgment and decree made by the Civil Judge. Hubli. in Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1966. which affirmed the judgment and decree made bv the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class. Haveri. In L. C. Suit No. 58 of 1963. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, so far as they are material, are as follows:-- The suit for the recovery of a rent of Rs. 4,137-6-0 was filed by the respondent in forma pauperis on 29-9-1959 by way of a composite document containing both the plaint and the application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P. C. On 31-1-1963 the application to sue as a pauper came to be dismissed, without any specific order as to rejection of the plaint or as to the time within which the plaintiff was required to make good the court-fee payable in the suit. Subsequently, time was granted to pay the court-fee end the same was extended from time to time on the basis of certain applications filed, whi...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Narasimha Iyengar Vs. P.K. Ramaswamy Iyengar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant118; AIR1973Mys118; (1972)2MysLJ145
C. Honniah, J.1. This is a defendant's Second appeal. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties and for possession of the same along with damages of Rs. 4,000/- for use and occupation of the suit properties.2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit are that one Pankajamma, the widow of the deceased brother of the plaintiff and the defendant, had obtained a decree against the defendant and others in O. S. No. 1 of 1936-37 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Hassan, for possession of the suit properties and other properties. The date of the decree in that suit was 31-5-1938. Pankajamma assigned the said decree in favour of the plaintiff and the said assignment was recognised in Execution Case No. 16 of 1941-42. The plaintiff then sued out execution of the same in Execution Case No. 22 of 1952-53, for delivery of the suit properties. The plaintiff's case was that he obtained deliv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›