Karnataka Court June 1972 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Banglore Woollen, Cotton and Si ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR166(KAR); [1973]91ITR166(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The learned Judge set out the statement of the case which ran as follows : The assessment year is 1965-66. the accounting year is the calendar year 1964. the assesse is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of wollen and cotton fabrics. During the accounting year relevent to the assessment year 1965-66, the assesses-company donated cloth manufactured by it to various institutions, to the extent of the value of Rs. 6, 834. the company claimed exception in respect of the sadi donations in 'kind' under section 88 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee as the donation was not made in cash but in kind.3. The assessee field an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Banglore, who allowed the claim of the assessee.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the department filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that under se...
S. Devaraj Vs. Patel Nanjegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant350; AIR1972Mys350; (1972)2MysLJ141
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a landlord's revision petition against the order passed by the First Additional District Judge. Bangalore in L. R. Appeal No. 18 of 1971, affirming the order passed bv the Mun-siff, Doddaballapur in R. L. C. No. 1 of 1970. The petitioner is the landlord of the lands in question. He filed a statement under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of the lands from his tenant, the respondent. The Court of first instance dismissed. the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove thai the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. That order has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence this revision petition.2. Shri H. S. Shankaranarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner being a soldier, he is not required to satisfy the requirement of Section 16 (9) of the Act. Both ...
Smt. Zubeida Bi Vs. M. Mohammed Ismail
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant16; AIR1973Mys16
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J.1. The respondent who claims to be a landlord of the suit premises filed an application for eviction against the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner resisted the application on several grounds inter alia contending that she is not a tenant and that she is in possession of the premises in her own right. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings the respondent made an application under Section 29 of the Act, requesting the Court to stop further proceedings and to take an order for summary eviction against the petitioner on the ground that she has not paid the rent for a period of about 60 months. That application was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that unless the Court decides in the first instance the issue pertaining to tenancy and holds that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent, the Court is not entitled to make any order on the application ...
Workmen of Yelandur Taluk Land Mortgage Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ588Kant; (1972)2MysLJ149
Per Chandrasekhar, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the principal question that arises for decision is as follows : Where before dismissing an employee no domestic enquiry has been held by his employer but the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court upholds such dismissal on the basis of evidence adduced by the employer before it, is the employee entitled to get his salary or wages from the date of such dismissal till the date of the award or order of the Tribunal or the Labour Court upholding such dismissal 2. One C. M. Krishnamurthy was assistant secretary to Yelandur Taluk Land Mortgage Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the management), respondent 2 herein. The management terminated his services by its order dated November 15, 1967. His case was espoused by the Mysore District Employees Union which raised an industrial dispute. The Government referred under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to...
Ratna Bai Vs. N. Narayani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant174; AIR1973Mys174; (1972)2MysLJ185
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition against the order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Mangalore in H. R. C. No. 63 of 1971 on I. A. No. II. The Respondent landlord made an application for eviction under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period 1-11-1969 to 20-2-1971. After the tenant was served with the notice of the suit, she admitted the claim of the landlord as regards arrears of rent The Court, therefore, made an order on the 20th August, 1971 under Section 21 (2) of the Act. A month's time was given to the tenant to pay all the arrears of rent. That period expired on the 20th September. 1971. On the 8th Oct. 1971, the tenant filed interim application No. II for extension of time for depositing the arrears of rent till the 15th October 1971. It was explained in the said application that the tenant is an old lady of 60 years and that her son who was looking after her affairs was seriously i...
i.B. Hebballi Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1972
Reported in: [1972]30STC38(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. This is a revision petition preferred by the assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and it relates to the period 19th November, 1963, to 4th November, 1964. 2. The assessee is a bamboo merchant at Hubli. He filed a return disclosing a total turnover of Rs. 78,479.25, and a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,655. The Intelligence Department of the Commercial Tax Department discovered from some books and other papers seized from the dealer that he had suppressed his turnover, both the total turnover as well as the taxable turnover. When that discovery was made, the petitioner filed a revised return disclosing a total turnover of Rs. 1,32,425.92 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 50,627.90. The Commercial Tax Officer, by his order dated 30th September, 1966, made an order of assessment on the best of judgment basis. He rejected the return and computed the total turnover as well as the taxable turnover by the addition of Rs. 45,000 to the total turnover and Rs. 40,000 to...
Karibasappa Vs. Md. Khaja HussaIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant77; AIR1973Mys77; (1972)2MysLJ273
Venkataramiah, J. 1. R. A. 98/60 was dismissed on 26-7-1965 on the ground that the appellant did not deposit the printing charges within the time granted by the Court. The present application is filed for restoration of the appeal on 22-2-1972. The delay in making the application is more than 6 years. No satisfactory explanation is given for not filing the application within a reasonable time after the dismissal of the appeal. Mr. Murlidhar Rao submits that the rules of the High Court do not prescribe any period of limitation for making such an application and hence there is no delay in making the application. We do not agree with the above submission. When no specific period of limitation is prescribed therefor, the case has to be dealt with in the light of the doctrine of laches which applies to judicial proceedings. The period of six years cannot be considered as reasonable time within which an application for restoration can be filed. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming to c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›