Karnataka Court March 1976 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.
National Products Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR977; [1977]108ITR935(KAR); [1977]108ITR935(Karn); 1976(1)KarLJ398
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was, for the Tribunal, an error in law to hold that the order levying interest either under section 139(4) or under section 215(1), Income-tax Act, was not appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. Its previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 ended on March 31, 1970. Its income-tax return was due by September 30, 1970, but the same was filed only on February 25, 1971. The assessment was completed by an order of assessment made on March 19, 1971, determining the total income at Rs. 1,42,090 on which a sum of Rs. 21,084 was assessed as the amount of tax. A sum of Rs. 1,146 was charged as interest under sub-section 4(a) read with clause (...
Krishnaji Pandurang Naik Vs. Govind Narasimha Umarji and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant162; ILR1976KAR1146; 1976(1)KarLJ346
ORDER1. Krishnaji Pandurang Naik the petitioner was the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 9 and 11 of Nandgad village. In 1946, he sold the lands to Govind Narasimha Umarji respondent 1 before me. After the sale, he instituted proceedings under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act claiming that the alienation made by him was not an out and out sale, but only a mortgage and he should be permitted to redeem the same. G. N. Umarji resisted the action. The Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belgaum before who in the proceedings were initiated, held that the transaction complained of was not a mortgage. Against that decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the B. A. D. R. Court, In the said appeal, the petitioner and respondent 1 entered into a compromise. They agreed that the alienation regarding Survey, No. 9 should be treated as mortgage and the one in respect of Survey No. 11 should be treated as sale. On 14-10-1960, the B.A.D.R. Court made an award accordingly.G. N. Uma...
Regional Director, Company Law Board, Government of India Vs. Mysore G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas752(Kar); ILR1976KAR997; 1976(1)KarLJ343
1. This appeal by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Southern Region, Madras, is directed against an order made by a learned single judge of the court, sitting as company judge, in Company Petition No. 7 of 1973.2. In the light of the contention urged on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to state only a few facts. The three respondent-companies sought to amalgamate, pursuant to a scheme framed by them at a joint-meeting of all their members, moved the court by means of a petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act (Act for short) for sanction of the same. The court after hearing all the parties concerned, including the appellant herein, accorded sanction to the said scheme of amalgamation.3. Before the learned single judge, on behalf of the appellant, it had been contended that since none of the three companies in question was being wound up, it was necessary for the court to call for a report from the official liquidator pursuant to the requirements enjoined...
Jasmine Amarjothi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: 1976(1)KarLJ391; (1977)ILLJ121Kant
ORDER1. These petitions raise an important question of law relating to recruitment to Class III cadre in the Reserve Bank of India, which is a body corporate constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The matter arises in this way : The Reserve Bank is entrusted with all the monetary and banking transactions of the Central and State Governments. It has got its branch offices in almost all the States including one at Bangalore. The Bangalore Branch has jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka. In the beginning of 1974, the Manager of the Bangalore Branch invited applications from Indian citizens for enlistment in the waiting lists for the common cadre of Clerks Grade II/Coin-Note Examiners Grade II which are Class III posts. The minimum qualification prescribed was a Bachelor's degree with minimum of 40 per cent marks aggregate of a recognised university, preferably in Economics, Commerce, Banking, Statistics, Mathematics. The petitioners were amongst several candidat...
Arun Narayan Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant174; 1976(1)KarLJ349
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Venkataramiah, J.2. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to Kasturba Medical College at Manipal (respondent-2). In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed for quashing Rule 3 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He has also prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-2 to affirm his admission to that College ignoring Rule 3 of the Rules.3. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is useful to state the set up of Medical Colleges in Karnataka State and how students are admitted to them.4. In Karnataka State, the State Government has been running 4 Medical Colleges at Mysore, Bangalore Hubli and Bellary and there are 5 non-Government Medical Colleges including respondent-2 College. These private Medical Colleges do not get any grant in aid either from...
Chikkatharmaiah and ors. Vs. Chikkahutchiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant99; ILR1976KAR1697
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Munsiff at Mandya, while deciding Issue No. 5, holding that the suit was not maintainable unless the petitioners-plaintiffs sought for the relief for cancellation of a previous sale deed executed by their father in favour of the defendant-2. The petition arises in the following circumstances. A Civil Suit was filed by Chikkathamaiah and two others who are sons of one Chikkegowda for declaration of title and permanent injunction relating to a house site. It was stated that Chikkegowda executed, a sale deed in 1954 in favour of his son-in-law K. L. Mallegowda and that sale deed was obtained by undue influence and fraud inasmuch as Chikkegowda was an old man and he was sick and feeble on the date of the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs based their claim stating that the property was the joint family property and after the death of Chikkegowda the plaintiffs being the sons got the title and the sale deed of ...
C.R. Shivananda Vs. the Election Officer and Head Quarters Assistant t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR961; 1976(1)KarLJ389
ORDER1. One H. R. Keshavamurthy was elected as President of the Town Municipal Council, Chickmagalur. His term of office was one year. Before the expiry of the period, he resigned. In the vacancy caused thereby, the petitioner was elected as President. The Election Officer wants to hold the fresh election stating that the petitioner has no right to remain in the office beyond the term of Keshavamurthy. But the petitioner says 'No'. He says that his term is fully one year from the date he had entered the office. So he challenges the validity of the Proposed election in this writ petition.2. I think, the question resolves itself if one peruses closely the provisions, of sub-sections (11) and (12) of Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. They read as follows:'42 (11). The term of office of every President and of every Vice-President shall, save as provided in this Act, cease on the expiry of the term of office as councilor; provided that the Government may, with the consent of t...
M. Vaikunta Prabhu Vs. Rosari D' Almeda and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: 1976(1)KarLJ377
ORDER1. As law now stands, who is to decide the question of rival tenancy set up by the parties, whether the Civil Court under its general jurisdiction or the Tribunal in its limited jurisdiction, is the short question for decision in this case. The Tribunal is constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (called shortly 'the Act').2. Before going to the facts, I will set out hereunder the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 133 which has been substituted by Karnataka Ordinance 24 of 1975, provides:'133. Suits involving issues required to be decided under this Act.- (1) If any suit instituted in any Civil Court involves any issues or questions which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tribunal or any suit is instituted in any such court for possession of or injunction in respect of any land on the allegation that the defendant has trespassed or is trying to trespass on such land and the defendant denies such allegation and claims that- (i)such land is...
V. Laxman Mallya Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC51(Kar)
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J.1. In this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, amendment effected to section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, by Karnataka Act No. 9 of 1970, is challenged as unconstitutional. Further, the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Second Circle, Udipi, dated 30th December, 1972, for the year ending 31st March, 1971, is asked to be quashed to the extent objected to, viz,, the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 28,107.48 in computing the turnover. 2. By Act No. 9 of 1970, section 6 of the original Act was substituted by another section levying purchase tax under certain circumstances. Similar provision had been introduced in other States, in particular, Kerala and Madras. The High Court of Kerala held that the new provision was valid and constitutional, whereas the High Court of Madras held to the contrary. As against the decision of the High Court of Madras, the matter was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›