Karnataka Court July 1974 Judgments
K. Rayappa Vs. Lingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant5; ILR1974KAR1485; 1975(1)KarLJ79
1. This appeal under Section 83 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, arises from an order of dismissal of an application preferred under Section 62 of that Act, made by the District Judge at Tumkur in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1972.2. The application concerns the alleged idiocy or unsound ness of mind of one Koterayaswamy. The father of the said person is the applicant and the respondent is his maternal grandfather. It would appear that the alleged hmatic's mother, Adavemma, died about 14 months before the date of the application. Ever since his birth he and his mother had been forced to live with the respondent. There has also been litigation between the alleged lunatic and his father which had concluded with the passing of a decree directing partition of the properties of the joint family of which they had both been members. Ever since the death of the alleged lunatic's mother, he had not been cared for, or looked after properly, although ho was possessed of property. Hence the petition for an ...
Tag this Judgment!The Kampli Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC332(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This revision petition under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act', preferred by the dealer relates to the assessment year 1963-64. 2. The dealer is the Kampli Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Kampli, which carries on the business of manufacturing sugar from sugarcane purchased from growers. The dealer also sells sugarcane setts to the growers from whom it purchases sugarcane. Under section 5(3)(b) read with item 11-A of the Third Schedule to the Act, the levy on sugarcane is at the purchase point. The minimum purchase price of sugarcane had been fixed by the Central Government by its order issued under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1956. The dealer entered into agreements with the sugarcane-growers for purchase of sugarcane at the minimum price fixed by the Order of the Central Government. Under the said agreements, the growers agreed to supply their sugarcane f.o.r. factory premises of the dealer. As an inducem...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. S.V. Pagadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC439(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This revision petition under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, preferred by the State relates to the assessment year 21st March, 1967, to 20th November, 1967, and it is directed against the order dated 22nd November, 1972, in S.T.A. No. 222 of 1972, on the file of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The matter arises this way : The respondent is a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The dealer had collected sales tax amounting to Rs. 565.80 on the sales of iron and steel rails, although he was the second dealer in the said goods. Under the Act, it is only the first or earliest of the successive dealers in the State that is liable to tax and, therefore, the dealer is admittedly not liable to tax on the said sales. However, the dealer had collected sales tax when the transactions were not exigible to tax. On the ground that the dealer had contravened section 18(1) of the Act, the comm...
Tag this Judgment!Jubedabi Kom and ors. Vs. Jainabi Kom and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant7; ILR1974KAR1473; 1975(1)KarLJ66
1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant. The respondents are the legal representatives of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed R.O.S. No. 120 of 1952 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The partnership was entered into in December, 1948. The partnership business related to excavation of Manganese ore extracted in Goa territory. The plain tiff and defendant each contributed Rs 8000/- and they agreed to share the profit and loss equally and the defendant had to keep the accounts of the business. The partnership business appears to have been carried on from 1949 to 1951. The plaintiff issued a notice in November, 19.51 to the defendant to render accounts of the partnership business. The defendant denied the existence of the partnership and also the investment of Rs. 8,000/- by the plaintiff. The trial court, after recording evidence, passed a preliminary decree on 30-8-1954. Mr. K. V. Kulkarni, pleader, Bel...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawarilal and anr. Vs. S. Jaichand and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant122; ILR1975KAR127; 1975(1)KarLJ1
ORDER1. This is a revision petition by defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 94 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, K. G. F., against the order of temporary injunction granted in the said suit, which was affirmed in appeal by the Court of the Civil Judge, Kolar, in M. A. No. 62 of 1973.2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plain-tiffs and respondent 3 is the Administrator of the Robertsonpet Town Municipality, K. G. F. The said Municipality is the owner of two shops which are the subject-matter of these proceedings. The Municipality leased the two shops on 17-6-1972 to the petitioners. On 9-3-1973, respondents 1 and 2 instituted O. S. No. 94 of 1973 against the Municipality and also the lessees from the Municipality, who are the petitioners herein, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from occupying the premises leased to them. The plaintiffs' case is that under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar, the Municipality should have auctioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanabasawwa and anr. Vs. Bhimappa Ramappa Hosmani and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant15; ILR1974KAR1517; 1974(2)KarLJ307
1. The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She brought a suit against her husband in O. S. No. 388 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Chinta-mani, for maintenance. In that suit, the defendant-husband raised various contentions. He did not dispute that the plaintiff is his wife. In the suit, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. III for making an order granting interim maintenance. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, made an order to the effect that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month from the date of the suit. It is against the said order that this revision petition is directed.2. It was urged by Sri M. S. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in a suit for recovery of maintenance the Court has no jurisdiction to order interim maintenance. In support of that contention, he relied on the decisions in Mohd. Abdul Kahman v. Tajunnissa Begum : AIR1953Mad420 and Appanna v. Secthamma : AIR1972AP62 ....
Tag this Judgment!Ganjam Nagappa and Son Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC403(Kar)
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the dealer against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of assessment made for the year 1967-68 (1st April, 1967, to 31st March, 1968.) 2. The dealer is a firm carrying on business in jewellery, and especially jewellery set with diamonds and other precious stones. The Commercial Tax Officer held that the transactions carried on by the dealer were sales of diamonds and other precious stones and gold and not sales of finished jewellery as such and, therefore, brought to tax the turnover as determined by him at 5 1/2 per cent in accordance with item No. 64 of the Second Schedule to the Sales Tax Act as it then prevailed. The dealer appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes contending that there was no sale of diamonds or other precious stones as such and that the transactions could not be brought to tax under item No. 64, and reliance was sought to be placed upon the decision of this court in Ganjam N...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Jayadeviah and anr. Vs. Narasimhegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant174; ILR1975KAR41; 1975(1)KarLJ23
1. The appellants are plaintiffs, the respondents are defendants. The suit is for a declaration that the decree obtained by the 1st defendant in O. S. 323/47-48 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Tiptur, is void and not binding on the plaintiffs, for recovery of possession of the schedule property and also to declare that the execution proceedings in Ex. No. 691/50-51 on the file of the Munsiff, Tumkur and the sale held thereon do not bind the plaintiffs and for mesne profits from the date of suit. The 1st defendant had filed O. S. 323/47-48 against the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 1,000 and interest thereon due on a pronote executed by Siddananjappa, the father of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff was a minor and the second plaintiff, mother of the 1st plaintiff was the proposed guardian of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that the 1st defendant managed to see that endorsements of refusal were written both in the summons and in the notices issued on the application f...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Nadakattinavar Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Ii Circle, Hubli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC484(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. When the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) paid a visit to the shop of the petitioner in his absence his clerk handed over certain books to the Deputy Commissioner. On looking into them, the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that certain turnovers of the petitioner had escaped assessment. He, therefore, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty as required under section 12-A(1-A) should not be levied. The petitioner filed his objections in response to the said notice and stated that the books and documents referred to by the Deputy Commissioner did not belong to him. After some correspondence between the sales tax authorities and the petitioner, the Commercial Tax Officer passed an order under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in respect of one year and under section 12(3) in respect of another year. Aggrieved by the said orders of assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Laxman Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Udipi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC393(Kar)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner was a successful bidder at an excise auction held for the privilege of vending toddy in the district of South Kanara for the year 1971-72, i.e., from 1st July, 1971, to 30th June, 1972. It would appear that immediately after he was declared as a successful bidder he entered into an agreement with several other to vend toddy at different places within the district of South Kanara as it was permissible under the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder to get such sub-leases recognised. On the basis of the sub-leases granted by the petitioner the sub-lessees commenced to vend toddy at the places assigned to them on payment of the agreed amount to the petitioner. The petitioner brought to the notice of the excise authorities that he had sub-leased his privilege in favour of others and requested them to recognise the same. Before the excise authorities could make an order recognising the sub-leases the period of lease was over...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »