Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys332; ILR1963KAR536; (1963)2MysLJ253
ORDER1. The solitary question that arises for decision in this revision petition is whether the security bond tendered by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 herein, in O.S. No. 7 of 1957 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in pursuance of the Order of this Court in I. A. No. I, in R.F.A. No. 77 of 1962 on the file of this Court, requires to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the same requires to be registered. The petitioner has come up in revision against that order. This matter originally came up before our learned brother Hombe Gowda, J., sitting singly. His Lordship referred the matter to a Division Bench as there is sharp cleavage of judicial opinion.The question of law referred to us for decision is not free from difficulty. As mentioned by Hombe Gowda, J. on that question the judicial opinion is sharply divided. Further, unless we are thoroughly convinced that the view taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant64; AIR1964Mys64; 1964CriLJ418; ILR1963KAR670; (1963)2MysLJ258
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order, dated 16th March 1959, passed by the District Judge of South Kanara in Appeal Suit No. 154 of 1958, by which he confirmed the order of the trial Court and directed that the execution petition be proceeded with according to law.2. The facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows:3. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 477A and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 2 1/2 years. The date of this order is not available hOWever, there seems to be no dispute that the appellant has served the substantive sentence of one year and since there was default in payment of fine, tie was undergoing the default sentence. It appears that during the course or his imprisonment, he made a part payment of Rs. 1,242/- towards the sentence of fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1964]52ITR789(KAR); [1964]52ITR789(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in I.T.A. No. 5488 of 1958-59 on its file, referred to this court the question 'whether the sum of Rs. 1,87,630 is, by is nature, taxable sum under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?' under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act'). 2. It would be appropriate to recast this question as follow : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 1,87,630 refunded by the Government to the assessee by adjustment is, by its nature, a taxable sum under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?' 3. The relevant facts as found by the Tribunal and set out in the statement of the case and the fuller statement of the case submitted to this court are as follow : The assessee was an excise contractor. He had liquor shops at Mahabubnagar, Macherala, Raichur and Narayanpettah. The kist due from him for Faslis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant173; AIR1964Mys173; (1964)1MysLJ1
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 4 of 1957 on the file of the learned District Judge, Bellary. They sought injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing their trade mark detailed in the plaint and from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs. They also sued for damages for infringement of their rights. Their Suit was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the trade mark on the date of the suit and hence the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court did not go into the merits of the case and therefore, the only question for decision is whether the Court below was right in holding that the suit is not maintainable.2. In order to appreciate the riyal contentions advanced at the hearing, it is necessary to set out the history of the right claimed in the suit. Lever Brothers (India) Limited, has been a leading soap manufacturing firm in India for the last several years. One of the soaps manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant117; AIR1964Mys117; ILR1963KAR691; (1963)2MysLJ421
1. These two appeals are directed against two Identical orders passed by the District judge, Bangalore, on two applications in two different proceedings, one in Execution Case No. 52 of 1952-53 and the other In Miscellaneous Case No. 87 of 1952-53 tiled by the Respondent praying that the appellant be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,010/- withdrawn by him from the deposit in Court on 7-2-1955, on the ground that the order on the strength of which he had withdrawn the amount had been set aside In appeal. The learned District Judge has granted the petitions and directed the appellant to redeposit the amount within 15 days.2. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the points in dispute are few and undisputed, one EA Read who was an employee in the Kolar Gold fields and was entitled to Rs. 7,588-3-0 towards his Provident Fund Contribution from the Undertaking, was indebted to the appellant Ratanchand as also to the Respondent Multanmur. Multanmull had taken a bond from Read On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1963)IILLJ694Kant
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. This case presents the question whether a Government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe. 2. The material facts are these : On 27 March, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthi Rao, a hotel-keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit and Anti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthi Rao was asked to deliver them to be petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of 28 March, 1959, Krishnamurthi Rao, according to his story,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant250; AIR1964Mys250; (1963)2MysLJ1
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This case presents the question whether a government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe.2. The material facts are these: On March 27, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthy Rao, a hotel keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit andAnti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthy Rao was asked to deliver them to the petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of March 28, 1959, Krishnamurthy Rao, according to his story, wal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant240; AIR1964Mys240
Hegde, J.1. These petitions raise common questions of law. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioners formulated six questions of law. They are :(i) Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is beyond the competence of the State Legislature since the said subsection purports to amend the various enactments repealed by Section 40 (1) of the 'Act'; (ii) Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the 'Act' has to be struck down as ultra vires Under Article 245(1) read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India, since the State Legislature cannot have extra-territorial jurisdiction: (iii) The introduction of Sub-section (1A) in Section 40 of the 'Act' in the year 1962 is opposed to Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act; (iv) Section 6 (1) of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1962 is a colourable piece of legislation and is liable to be struck down; (v) Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the 'Act' has to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1964]53ITR710(KAR); [1964]53ITR710(Karn)
1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Bangalore, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in I.T. As. Nos. 6585 to 6587 of 1961-62 on its file. 2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : The assessee derived income from securities, from properties, money lending business and petrol business. He also conducted a beer tavern. The accounting years concerned in these appeals are the year ending on June 30, 1954, June 30, 1955, and June 30, 1956. In the year ending on June 30, 1953, the assessee had abkari contract. During the years under reference the assessee had no such abkari contract. The assessee had maintained a fleet of lorries for transporting toddy from the palm groves to the various shops which were spread over a wide area. Depreciation was allowed on these lorries up to and inclusive of the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1964]34CompCas338(Kar); (1964)1MysLJ35
1. This is an appeal under rule 164 of the company [court] rules, 1959, read with section 457[3] of the companies Act of 1956, by the Regional provident fund commissioner of Mysore at Bangalor, against the order of the officer liquidator dated 29the August 1963, to the extent it rejected the appellant's claim for preferential payment in respect of a sum of rupees 2,414.22 Out of his total claim of Rs. 79.386.74 no. being the contribution and charges payable by the company in liquidation under the Employees Provident funds act, 1952, and the Scheme thereunder made applicable to the company. 2. Notice of admission of proof in From No. 70 prescribed under the rules dated 29the August, 1963, was served on the appellant on 31st August 1963. The appeal was filed on 4th October 1963. thirteen days beyond the time prescribed under rule 164. The appellant prays for condonation of this delay for the reasons set out in paragraph 9 of his affidavit. 3. Two reasons are stated therein. The first is ...
Tag this Judgment!