Karnataka Court May 1978 Judgments
M. Subramanya Bhat Vs. Govindaraj and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1978
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas609(Kar)
Sabhahit, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal instituted under s. 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and award dated January 19, 1976, in M.C. (MVC) No. 106 of 1974 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, dismissing the petition for payment of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a motor accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that when he was going on the right side of the road near Jyothi Garage, Bunder, Mangalore, at about 2.30 p.m. on April 22, 1974, a lorry bearing No. MYG 5704 came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident resulting in injuries to his left foot and left side ribs. Thus, he alleged that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry and claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000 from respondents. 3. Respondent-1 is the owner; respondent-2 is the driver of the lorry and respondent-3 is the insurer of the lorry. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1978
Reported in: ILR1979KAR161; [1978]115ITR698(KAR); [1978]115ITR698(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company. It had a scheme of gratuity payment the Mysore Tobacco Company Employees' Gratuity Rules, 1957. The rules provided for two types of gratuity, namely, retirement gratuity and compassionate gratuity. Every employee who had put in minimum of 5 years of service was eligible for gratuity and a maximum limit of Rs. 6,000 had been fixed as the amount of gratuity payable at the time of death or retirement of the employee. The company, however, had not created any trust or fund in this behalf. 2. In respect of the assessment for the years prior to the assessment year 1971-92, the assessee had claimed the amounts actually paid out in each of the years as deductions and such amounts actually had been allowed in these assessments. It had not made any provision as such for gratuity liability nor claimed any such provision as allowable deduction in the earlier years. 3. Apparently, in the light of certain observations made by the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR704(KAR); [1978]114ITR704(Karn)
Venkatramaiah, J.1. Since a common question of law arises for consideration in these two cases they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. I.T.R.C. No. 7 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1967-68 and I.T.R.C. No. 8 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1970-71. 3. The assessee in these tow cases is the State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore, In the course of its business the assessee held certain sums in foreign currencies in various banks situated abroad for the purposes of making payment to foreign concerns on behalf of its clients in India. 4. On June 6,1966, the Indian rupee was devalued and as a consequence of such devaluation the amount held by the assesee in foreign currencies outside and India became appreciated in terms of rupees by Rs. 3,20,823. Due to revaluation of the france and deutschmark in 1969, there was again appreciation of the amounts held by the assessee in foreign currencies abroad in terms of Indian currency by Rs. 14,127. 5. The Income-tax officer held that...
Tag this Judgment!Liquidator, Mysore Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR853(KAR); [1978]114ITR853(Karn); 1978(2)KarLJ374
Venkatramaiah, J.1. The assessee in this case is M/s. Mysore Agencies Private Ltd. Bangalore (in voluntary liquidation). The assessee year is 1967-68. A total sum of Rs. 4,600 which had been debited in the books of accounts of the assessee during the earlier years towards rent payable to its landlord had been allowed as trading expense by the income-tax authorities in the orders of assessment passed earlier of them. During the assessment year in the questions the liquidator of the assessee which had gone into voluntary liquidator transferred the said sum of Rs. 4,600 which had been shows as the rent payable to the landlord in the earlier years to the profit and loss account of the year in question and treated it as an item of credit in its hands. The Income-tax Officer treated the said sum of Rs. 4,600 also as part of the taxable income on the basis of the profit and loss account presumably on the ground that section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer Pasha Vs. the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant48; ILR1978KAR1267; 1978(2)KarLJ413
D.M. Chandrasekhar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Nesargi, J; in W. P. No. 5731 of 1977. The appellant and the respondents herein were the petitioner and the respondents respectively in the writ petition and they will hereinafter be referred to according to their positions in the writ petition.2. The petitioner had made an application for grant of a permit to operate a stage carriage on an inter-State route. By its resolution dated 26/27-11-1976, the Karnataka State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the K. S. T. A.) had granted such permit to the petitioner. Against the grant, respondents 3 to 11 preferred appeals to the Karnataka State Trans port Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) which set aside that grant on the sole grounds that on the day when that resolution granting the permit was passed by the K. S. T. A., only the Chairman and non-official members thereof were present and that since none of the official members thereof was p...
Tag this Judgment!Anjaneyappa and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kola ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant216; ILR1978KAR1609; 1978(2)KarLJ418
D.M. Chandkashekhar, C.J.1. These appeals are from the common order of Jagannatha Shetty, J., in W. Ps. Nos. 4428 to 4430 of 1976. The appellants herein were the petitioners therein and will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners. The respondents herein were respondents therein.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners had impugned the acquisition of their lands for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the people under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), They had contended inter alia, that:(i) They had no opportunity of being heard as required under Rule 6 (3) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House-sites Rules, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Act. (ii) The Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' objections to the proposed acquisition of their lands and (iii)...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulmunaf Vs. Salima
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ172
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. These two petitions are against the order dated 8-7-1975 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar-war, in Misc. Case No. 105 of 1975 under Section 125 of the Cri. P. C. 1973 (to be hereinafter referred to as the new Code). The Cr.P.C. 1898 will be hereinafter referred to as the old Code.2. The undisputed facts are that Smt. Salima the respondent in Cr. R. P. No. 405 of 1976 and the petitioner in Cr. R. P. No. 92 of 1977 is the divorced wife of Abdulmunaf the petitioner in Cr. R. P. No. 405 of 1976 and the respondent in Cr. R. P. No, 92 of 1977. These parties would be hereinafter referred to as the wife and husband.3. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the new Code praying that she is entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/-. She claimed her right in view of the Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of the new Code. She contended that her husband was a teacher and he was earning sufficient amount so as to afford to maintain her by giving Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Nateshan Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-04-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1642
N.R. Kudoor, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the accused in C. C. N. 10 of 1975 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore, He was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 47l I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as per his judgment dated 28th June 1976 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for each of the offences and directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant challenged the said conviction and sentence in Cr. A. No. 563 of 1976 on the file of this Court. This Court set aside the sentence on the ground that the appellant was not heard as required by Section 248 (2) of the Cr. P, C. and remanded the matter to the trial court to hear the appellant regarding the sentence and then dispose of the matter. Thereupon, the learned Special Judge, heard the appellant on the q...
Tag this Judgment!AzeezuddIn Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-04-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1632
N.R. Kudoor, J.1. The appellant, who was the accused in C. C, No. 9 of 1975 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore, has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentences passed against him by the learned Special Judge in his judgment dated 28-6-1976 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471, I.P.C. on two counts each and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for each of the aforesaid five offences and directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. The appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk in 26, Equipment Depot, Air Force, Bangalore, in the accounts section till May 1975. He was entitled to medical advance and medical reimbursement in respect of the treatment of himself and the members of his family from the Department in his capacity as such Governm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›