Karnataka Court April 1977 Judgments

Krishne Gowda Vs. M. Sheik Suleman Sab

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant191; ILR1977KAR1319; 1977(2)KarLJ459

G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This matter arises out of an application for registration of occupancy in respect of agricultural lands situate in Yeladahalli village under S. 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The said application was made by the first respondent Sheik Suleman Sab. The Tribunal, by its order in Case No. LRF 47 of 1974-75 made on 21-8-1975 confirmed the right of occupancy on Sheik Suleman in respect of Survey No. 16 measuring 3 acres, 7 guntas of dry land. Some time thereafter, an application was made before the Tribunal by the appellant Krishne Gowda to review the Tribunal's order dated 21-8-1975. On that application the Tribunal did not make any final order; but on 2-1-1976, it made an order expressing the view that it had decided the case in favour of Sheik Suleman on 21-8-1975, that the purchaser of the land, viz., Krishne Gowda (appellant) had filed his objections after the decision and that therefore, the Tribunal was of the unani...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Mangalamma and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Kar)0304B

Srinivasa Iyengar, J. - These are references made by the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, under S. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The question relates to the quantum of penalty imposable for the failure to file the return of wealth-tax within the time prescribed or within the time extended in accordance with law. Though the actual question referred in these several cases is somewhat different, the substance of the matter is one and the same. The question referred in T.R.C. 195 of 1977 is as follows :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the quantum of penalty should be calculated with reference to the law as on the date on which the return was due to be filed for the assessment year to which the penalty order pertained ?'Section 14(1) of the Act provides :-'14(1). Every person, if his new wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect of whi...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mangalamma and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These are references made by the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, under S. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). The question relates to the quantum of penalty imposable for the failure to file the return of wealth-tax within the time prescribed or within the time extended in accordance with law. Though the actual question referred in these several cases is somewhat different, the substance of the matter is one and the same. The question referred in T.R.C. 195 of 1977 is as follows :- 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the quantum of penalty should be calculated with reference to the law as on the date on which the return was due to be filed for the assessment year to which the penalty order pertained ?' Section 14(1) of the Act provides :- '14(1). Every person, if his new wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect o...

Bhaskar Manuel Ugargol Vs. Henrita Immanuel Pujar and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant199; 1977(1)KarLJ439

1. This petition, by the tenant, is to revise an order of the First Additional Munsiff, Dharwar, made under S. 43 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner and respondent 1 are occupying the adjoining buildings owned by respondent 1. The complaint of the petitioner was that the owner, with an evil design to harass him and make him to vacate the premises, instigated respondent 1 to close the only window of his kitchen as a result of which the kitchen has been rendered unfit for use since no light and air get into the kitchen and no smoke gets out there from. The kitchen room, according to the petitioner, has become a dark room without any use to the petitioner.With these allegations, he prayed for an order against the respondents to reopen the window.The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application. Their primary contention was that the supply of light and air did not fall within the e...

A.M. Abdul Khader Vs. Barnard Lobo

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant28; 1977(1)KarLJ417

ORDER1. This petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as it stood prior to the amendment by Act 31 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is directed against the order dated 11-9-1974 passed by the District Judge. South Kanara, Mangalore on I. A. No. III in H.R.C. Appeal No. 108 of 1973. By the said order, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner tenant.2. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Clauses (h) and (j) of the proviso Section 21 (1) of the Act praying for vacant possession of the schedule premises. The trial Court allowed the application and as against that order, the petitioner tenant filed H.R.C. Appeal No. 108 of 1973. During the pendency of the appeal the landlord filed I. A. No. III under Section 29 (1), (2) and (4) of the Act contending that the tenant had deposited the rent only upto 31-7-1973 and had not deposited the rent thereafter and as such, the order under Section 29 (4) of the Act dismi...

Ananthamathi Vs. Ratnavathi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant201; 1977(1)KarLJ435

ORDER1. This petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to revise the order of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur, granting a succession certificate to the 4th respondent on an application filed under S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Shortly stated, the facts are these:One B. T. Ariga died on 29th May, 1973, leaving behind the respondents as his legal representatives. They approached the Munsiff's Court for a succession certificate in respect of the amount lying in the Bank account of the deceased, and also in respect of some shares held by him in certain Companies.3. The petitioner opposed the application on the ground, among others, that the Court of Munsiff has no jurisdiction to grant succession certificate. He also contended that the deceased got properties under a settlement deed dated 29th Nov. 1916, and upon his death, the properties as per the terms of the deed would pass on to the petitioner and not to the legal repr...

Basappa Durgappa Kurubar and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1977CriLJ1541

ORDERS.R. Range Gowda, J.1. This petition raises a short but important question namely whether an order made Under Section 451 Cr. P.C. 1973, by a criminal Court without notice to or hearing the party adversely affected can be reviewed, and it arises in the following circumstances : On the complaint of the 2nd respondent Hanumantha Gowda a charge-sheet for the offences Under Sections 379 and 411 r/w Section 34 of the I. P.C. was ultimately filed against the petitioners on 20-10-1976 in C.C. No. 297/76 in the Court of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Laxmeswar, inter alia, alleging that on 21-9-1976 the petitioners committed theft of 4 she-buffaloes belonging to the 2nd respondent Haunmantha Gowda. It appears that the 4 she-buffaloes were seized and given to the custody of the policepatil during investigation. Then on 21-10-1976, the 2nd respondent's Advocate filed an application Under Section 451 Cr. P. C. in the said Court for the custody of the 4 she-buffaloes. The learned Magis...

U.F.M. Manju Ramakrishna Naik Vs. U.F.M. Umesh Shridhar Shanbagh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant156; ILR1977KAR997; 1977(1)KarLJ445

B. Venkataswami, J.1. This is, a defendant's second appeal under S. 100, Civil P. C. and directed against the decree in R. A. No. 139 of 1970 on the file of the Civil Judge, Karwar, dismissing the appeal of the appellant and affirming the decree in 0. S. No. 397 of 1962 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Honavar.2. Briefly, the facts so far as they are material for the disposal of the only contention urged in support of the appeal, areThe respondent-landlord instituted the suit on 5-11-1962 seeking a decree for possession of the suit shop premises, arrears of rent and mesne profits, principally on the ground that the appellanttenant had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent due for the period 22-2-1962 to 1-11-1962. At the time of institution of the suit, Parts IV and V of the Mysore (Now Karnataka) Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to, as the Act, comprising Ss. 19 to 31, regulating payment of rents by tenants and their eviction, had not been extended -and made applic...

The Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. S. Nara ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1977CriLJ1859

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference Under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants which found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct of the category mentioned Under Clause 8, Part I of the Second Schedule, with a recommendation to reprimand the respondent.2. The facts are not in dispute. They will be found correctly stated in the reference, and may briefly be stated thus :The respondent is a Chartered Accountant and also a partner of N.C. Rajagopal and Co. at Bangalore. In 1969, he was appointed to audit the books and records of a Company called Mysore Press Private Ltd. ('the publishers'), which has been publishing a weekly called 'PRAJAMATHA' in Kannada and Telugu languages. The respondent was required to do a special type of audit to enable the publishers to obtain or continue the membership of Audit Bureau of Circulation Ltd., Bombay ('ABC Ltd.'). That audit was also called as ABC Audit. On 1st Ma...

Mahalingeswamigalu Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1978Kant95; 1977(1)KarLJ409

Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is a writ petition toy a Mathadhipathi preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for a writ in the nature of certiorari or other suitable writ or order quashing the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, T. Narasipur Taluk, Mysore District, initiated on the applications of respondents 3 to 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act'.2. Respondents 3 to 7, claiming that they are tenants of three agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 131, 133 and 134 of Vadayendaballi village, measuring in all about 14 acres 1 gunta, applied to the Land Tribunal, T. Narasipur Taluk, for grant of occupancy under Section 45 of the Act. On receipt of the applications, the Land Tribunal issued notices to the petitioner Mathadhipathi, in form No. 9, to appear before the Tribunal on 6/8/1975. On service of the said notices, the petitioner Mathadhipathi has preferred the above writ petition.3. Two grounds have been urged in this ...