Karnataka Court February 1974 Judgments
Chandrappa Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga Division and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant12; ILR1974KAR946; 1974(2)KarLJ133
ORDER1. The facts and circumstances of this petition are slightly unusual. Respondent-4 had been elected as Chairman of the Village Panchayat, Anka-soddi, and he was functioning as the Chairman of the said Panchayat until he was removed by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur, on 8-5-1972. Against the said order res-pondent-4 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Gulbarga. The Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga. by his order dated 21-1-1974 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed that respondent-4 should continue as the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. During the pendency of the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, the Village Panchayat elected the petitioner as the Chairman. After the order of the Divisional Commissioner was passed, the petitioner has been asked to hand over charge to respondent-4 by the Chief Executive Officer. Taluk Development Board, Lingasugur. Respondent-3 herein. Aggrieved by the said order, th...
Tag this Judgment!Gowranna and anr. Vs. Basavana Gowd
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant84
1. The 1st appellant is the decree-holder, second appellant is the auction-purchaser and the respondent is the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder, in execution of a money-decree which he had obtained against the judgment-debtor got the properties of the latter including a house attached and brought them to sale. The properties were sold on 4-8-1972. All the properties, viz. a house and two lands were sold in one lot and purchased by the second appellant for a sum of Rs. 6,575/-. After the sale, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code to set aside the sale. The learned Munsiff held that no fraud or material irregularity had been established. He also rejected the contention of the judgment-debtor that the house is not unable to be sold under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He accordingly dismissed I. A. II and confirmed the sale. On appeal, the Lower Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the learned Munsiff that no frau...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Navalgundkar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR675(KAR); [1975]98ITR675(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred for the opinion of thus court the following question of law : 'On the facts and circumstance of the assessee's case, when interest under section 139 has been charged whether the Income-tax Officer was competent to levy any penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. No further facts are necessary as the question referred in self-evident. The contention of the assessee is that when interest under section 139 of the Act has been charged, it is not commented for the Income-tax Officer to levy penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. No Provisions of the Act has been brought to our notice which says that the two levies are alternative and not cumulative. When the Act does not state that where there is a levy under section 139, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is competent to levy the penalty. That is also the vie...
Tag this Judgment!Sterling Construction and Trading Company Vs. Income-tax Officer and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1193; [1976]102ITR47(KAR); [1976]102ITR47(Karn); 1974(2)KarLJ257
Venkataramiah, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed on June 15, 1971, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, in L. R. P. No. 108 of 1970 under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was carrying on business in extraction and sale of manganese and iron ores. In the course of the proceedings relating to the assessment of his income in respect of the assessment year 1962-63, the Income-tax Officer found that there were certain discrepancies regarding and that a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 shown in the books of the petitioner as borrowings on hundies had not been established. He was also of the opinion that there was a credit of Rs. 9,000 in suspense account regarding which there was no proper explanation. In view of the foregoing, the Income-tax Officer ordered that in all a sum of Rs. 3,40,970 as income from undisclosed sources should be added to the income declared by the petitioner in his profit and loss account. The...
Tag this Judgment!Tukappa Basappa Kuppalur Vs. Ramappa Subbappa Kuppalur and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: 1974(2)KarLJ92
1. Appellant is defendant 2, Respondent 1 is the plaintiff, and Respondent 2 is the 3rd defendant who died during the pendency of the second appeal. His Legal representatives have not been impleaded. Defendant 1 died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court and the application for impleaded his legal representatives was dismissed by the lower appellate court. The suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property. R. S. No. 22, situate in Yetinahalli village, Ranibennur Taluk, measuring 16 acres 15 guntas, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and in the alternative, for possession of any portion of the same which may be found to be in possession of any defendant or defendants.2. The property belongs to one Dharamchand Rupaji Marwadi. The father of the plaintiff was the protected tenant of this land and he died in about the year 1954. Subbappa's father was one ...
Tag this Judgment!Rallis India Limited and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR726; [1974]33STC484(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioners in these cases are all dealers in goods which are called as 'declared goods' under the provisions of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act (Central Act). Because the turnovers relating to the said goods were liable to purchase tax under section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (Karnataka Act) read with Schedule IV thereof, orders of assessment were passed by the respective assessing authorities under the Karnataka Act levying purchase tax in respect of the said turnovers. In view of section 15 of the Central Act, as it stood then, and the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Karnataka Act, the purchase tax levied in respect of the turnover of the said goods was directed to be refunded to the petitioners in some of these cases by the order of assessment; in some cases no levy of tax at all was made and in some cases by a separate order the amount recovered by way of purchase tax was ordered to be refunded, because in all cases the goods in question ha...
Tag this Judgment!Parasappa Nagappa Walikar Vs. Chandrawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant87; ILR1974KAR671; 1974(2)KarLJ82
1. Defendant 1 is the appellant, Respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs 1 and 2, and respondents 3 and 4 defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are minors represented by their maternal uncle as the next-friend. Plaintiff 3 is the mother of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The three plaintiffs instituted a suit for a declaration that the lease deed dated 1-4-1966 executed by the third plaintiff along with defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 is not binding on the plaintiffs, or on such of the plaintiffs as may be found not bound by it and for joint possession of their 3/4th share along with defendant 1, or of such share to which they or any of them may be found entitled to with future mesne profits etc. Plaintiff 3 is the step-mother of defendant 2, The husband of plaintiff 3, Baji Rama Pundenawar, died on 3-3-1966 at Algur leaving behind him plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant 2 as his heirs. This Baji was the statutory tenant of Sy. No. 12/3 of Sanal in Jamkhandi Taluk belonging to defendant 3. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Adiveppa Vs. Tangewwa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant198; ILR1974KAR623; 1974(2)KarLJ45
1. This is the plaintiff's Second Appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge at Bagalkot in Regular Appeal No. 4 of 1968 affirming the decree passed by the Munsiff at Bagalkot in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1967.2. The suit property is a house of which the owner is Shivanappa, the second defendant. The first defendant Tangewwa is the wife of the second defendant. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property on 2nd December 1957 from the second defendant. He has, on the basis of his title, filed the suit for possession. The second defendant filed a pursis consenting for a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is only the wife, the first defendant that resisted the suit. Her main case is that the suit house has been given for her residence during her lifetime by the husband and that therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to secure immediate possession of the suit property from her in view of the bar contained in Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. She has further p...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Electric Company Limited Vs. Workmen of Kirloskar Electric C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1974
Reported in: [1975(30)FLR387]; ILR1974KAR719; 1974(2)KarLJ30; (1974)IILLJ537Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner in the above writ petition is the Management of Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., Bangalore. It has challenged the validity of the order dated 26-11-1973 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore. 2. The facts of the case are briefly these : In or about the year 1965, an industrial dispute arose between the petitioner and its workmen with regard to the termination of services of an employee by name Jayaramiah. The matter was taken up before the Conciliation Officer who ultimately reported to the Government that the proceedings ended in failure. By its order dated 23-2-1967 passed under S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government declined to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The workmen challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. 203 of 1968. Only the State Government was impleaded as respondent to the said writ petition. The present petitioner was not impleaded as a par...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sridhara Kakkilaya Vs. Commissioner for Transport and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR598; 1974(1)KarLJ446
ORDER1. Shri B. Sridnara Kakkilaya, is an Advocate practising at Kasargod. He challenges in this petition the validity of an order by which the registration certificate of his vehicle bearing No. MYX 9691 has been suspended for a period of thirty days by the Senior Regional Transport Officer, South Kanara, in exercise of his powers under Section 33 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.The petitioner is in an unfortunate position. The vehicle in question was not made use of for committing any offence after he purchased the same. The said vehicle was made use of for conveying some passengers from Bellary to Puttur for hire without any valid permit for that purpose. The RTO issued a notice to show cause why the registration certificate of the vehicle should not be suspended. Respondent 3 before me was the then owner of the vehicle. He submitted his explanation denying the allegation, but, rejecting his explanation the RTO suspended the registration certificate of the vehicle for a peri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »