Karnataka Court February 1976 Judgments

Shankergouda Vs. Garangouda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1976KAR1112; 1976(1)KarLJ340

1. Has the Court -power under Section 152, Civil P. C. to amend its judgment and decree so as to correct a clerical or inadvertent error although such error had occurred on account of a mistake of the parties themselves in the pleadings This question arises out of the application, 1. A.. II, made by the appellant. He has prayed for amendment of the judgment and decree in the above appeal, by substituting the figure 203 for the figure 304 denoting, the survey number of the land in Kuralagere village which I held in this second appeal, to be the exclusive property of the appellant and directed its exclusion in the partition of the joint family properties between the appellant and the respondents.In the affidavit accompanying I. A. II, the appellant has alleged thus: In the plaint he had stated that the land bearing Survey No. 304 of Kuralagere was purchased by him out of his separate funds and that it was not liable for partition. The correct survey number of that land is 203. It is only...

S.P. Mohanlal, Bangalore Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

ORDERG.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court :- 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was attracted to the assessee's case ?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee filed his return of income on 6-4-1964 declaring an income of Rs. 13,459 from his business in cardamom and profits from two other firms. The assessment was concluded on 18-9-1964. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Department that the Assessee had Hundi transactions with some parties at Madras and at Bangalore. And the said parties had admitted before the Department that the transactions in Hundies were merely nominal transactions entered into to accommodate various parties for the purpose of introduction of their own monies in the shape of Hundi loans...

Sakina Bee Vs. Mohamed Ameer Saheb and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1976KAR1001; 1976(1)KarLJ365

1. This execution second appeal is by the 1'st judgment-debtor against the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Ex. A No 7/1973, reversing the order passed by the II Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore City, in Ex. No. 1267/1965.2. Respondent 1 filed an application for eviction against the appellant and respondent 2 under clauses (a) and (f) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the appellant who was. his tenant has committed default in payment of rent and also unlawfully sublet the premises to respondent-2. The appellant and respondent-2 did not file any objections to the eviction petition. They were also not present when the case was posted for hearing. Hence, they have been placed ex parte. In these circumstances, the learned Munsiff allowed the eviction petition ex parte. The application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order was ...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. I.T.C. Limited and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1979(4)ELT483(Kar); ILR1976KAR933

Sadanandaswamy, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos 1957 of 1974 and 1292 of 1973 respectively. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1957 of 1974 is the I.T.C. Limited (formerly known as India Tobacco Company Ltd.). It is a company engaged in the manufacture of cigarattes at several places in India. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1292. of 1973 is M.M. Rubber Company Private Limited. It is a company which manufactures rubber products. The petitioner in W.P. No 1957 of 1974 sells its goods to wholesalers in Bangalore as well as other places. Similarly the petitioner in W.P. No. 1292 of 1973 has got its Branch Offices at several places where the goods manufactured by it are sold to wholesalers. Until the decision of the Supreme Court in A.K.. Roy v. Voltas Ltd, AIR 1973 SC 225, was rendered, the petitioners were paying excise duty on the basis of the list prices at which the goods were sold to wholesalers at different places in India...

B.A. Basith Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-i, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1981]128ITR434(KAR); [1981]128ITR434(Karn)

M.K. Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. In this petition filed under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, an order purporting to have been made under s. 281 of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated April 7, 1963 (Ex. I), and the sale proclamation issued for the sale of properties - Survey Numbers 69/2 and 70/1 of Kempapura Agrahara Village, Bangalore North Taluk (Ex. II dated May 19, 1973), by the second respondent, Tax Recovery Officer, are challenged and it is prayed that the same may be quashed. 2. The petitioner was the owner of these properties and according to him, he transferred these properties to his sons on January 24, 1966, by way of gift. The gift was an oral one and in accordance with the Mohammadan law. The ITO, on February 26, 1973, issued a notice to the petitioner and a notice dated February 28, 1973, to his sons and others asking them to show cause why the transfers of the said properties on January 24, 1966, should not be held as void and were intended to defraud the revenue. On...

Sanganbhat Vs. Vasudev and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1976KAR992; 1976(2)KarLJ60

G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is an -appeal purported to be one tinder Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961(Against Judgment of Jagannatha Shetty I in C. P. No. 81 of 1975 D/- 31-7-1975).(hereinafter called the Act). It is directed against the Order dated 31-7-1975 made by Jagannatha Shetty, J., in C. P. No. 81 of 1975 dismissing the appellant's petition for withdrawal of Regular Appeal No. 97 of 1971 pending on t the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Bijapur to this Court, to be heard and disposed of with Regular Second Appeal No. 1486 of 1973.2. The office raised an objection regarding the in maintain ability of this appeal tinder Section 4 of the Act. When the objection came up for orders before the Admission Court, it was directed that the objection should be beard at the time of the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was registered as Original Side Appeal No. 10 of 1975, and this is how this matter has come up for hearing before us.3. At the every outset, ...

Muthappa Gowda Vs. Putta Master

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant89; ILR1976KAR849; 1976(1)KarLJ333

1. This is Decree-Holder's second appeal against the order of the Civil judge, Puttur, in Ex. A. No. 8 of 1975 reversing the order of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur, in Ex. Case No. 114 of 1974 (O. S. No. 354 of 1968). The appellant obtained A money decree in O. S. No. 354 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiff, Puttur, an 28th of November 1968. He sought execution of the said decree in Ex. Case No. 114 of 1974 on 27th May 1974 by sale of an agricultural land belonging to the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor resisted the execution relying upon the provisions of the Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1973. The Karnataka Agricultural Debtors' (Temporary Protection) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The benefit of the Act is available only to an agricultural debtor defined in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act The decree-holder took the stand that the judgment-debtor is not an agricultural debtor as defined in the Act. The Executing Court upheld the contention of the decree-holder ...

W.M.P. D'souza Mangalore Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, B ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Kar)212

ORDERG.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no sale by the deed dated 8-2-1968 and hence the assessee was liable to capital gains tax on the assets transferred to him under the deed, with reference to the cost of acquisition to the settlor ?' 2. On 13-10-1962 the late Cyprian Joachim D'Souza executed a will under which he left certain movable and immovable properties appointing his son-in-law Mr. Edwin D'Souza to be the sole executor of the will. Under the will the executor was directed to discharge all debts of the testator, pay Rs. 20,000/- towards charity and out of the residue to pay one-third to one of his sons, the assessee W. M. P. D'Souza, one-third to the assessee's brother Clifford and the remaining one-third to be divided equally amongs...

R.S. Leela Venugopal Vs. V.T. Rajasekhara Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1976Kant172; ILR1976KAR844; 1976(1)KarLJ287

ORDER1. This revision under Section 18 of the Small Cause Courts Act is by the plaintiff in S. C. 1618/72 on the file of the Court of the Small Causes at Bangalore.2. The undisputed facts are: The defendant-respondent was a lessee of a premises belonging to the Petitioner lesser on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. He was in arrears of rent for the month of November 1971 (i.e. Rs. 200) which had to be paid by 1-12 1971. It would appear that the water meter attached to and situated within the leased premises, and which was in a sound condition, had been stolen on the night of 6-12 1971. The lessee, therefore, called upon the lessor to have the same replaced presumably by way of repair. On lessor's refusal to comply, the lessee himself got it replaced at a cost of Rs. 78/-, through the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. He, therefore, deducted the same from out of the rent due for the previous month of November and sent the balance of rent of Rs. 122/- which was refused by the lessor. Thereupon...

Bhimappa Golappa Vs. Silemansaheb Kasimsaheb

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1976Kant239; ILR1976KAR829; 1976(1)KarLJ228

1. This second appeal is by the legal representative of the original 3rd defendant against the decree passed by the Additional Civil judge, Bijapur, in R. A, No. 251 of 1968 modifying the decree passed by the court of the Additional Munsiff, Bijapur, in Civil Suit No. 172 of 1965. The respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for possession of the same. The suit properties are portions of original S. No. 17 of Torvi Village which has been subdivided into S. Nos. 17/1 and 17/2.2. The respondent filed Small Cause Suit No. 295 of 1950 against Gurunath and. obtained a money decree against him. After two infructuous execution proceedings, the respondent filed Darkbast No. 29 of 1961 and got the lands S. Nos 17 and IS attached on 10th April, 1961. These lands were sold in execution of the decree and the respondent himself purchased the same on 4th June, 1962. As the application of the respondent to remove obstruction offered by Gurunath was dismissed, t...