Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1960]38ITR197(KAR); [1960]38ITR197(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. This petitioner, who is a partner of a firm called 'Unni & Co.', prays for the issue of an appropriate writ to wash the proceedings initiated by the second respondent, the Deputy commissioner, Bangalore District, to recover from the petitioner income-tax due by the said firm on the strength of a certificate under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act issued by the first respondent, the Income-tax Officer. Special Survey Circle, Bangalore. 2. For the assessment year 1953-54 the said firm was assessed as an unregistered firm under an order of assessment dated March 15, 1954, made by the first respondent officer. A sum of Rs. 70,206-10-0 was determined as the income-tax payable by the firm, a notice of demand under section 29 of the Act was also served on the firm. Deducting a small sum said to have been paid by one of the partners, a balance of Rs. 67,923-1-3 remained unpaid. The first respondent thereupon issued to the second respondent a certificate under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioner is an Association of employees of the 2nd respondent, the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd, Under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (Central Act XX of 1946), hereinafter referred to as the Act, the 2nd respondent filed a draft of standing orders before the Labour Commissioner in Mysore, who is the certifying officer under the Act for certification. Before certifying the draft standing orders, the Certifying Officer is said to have made many modifications therein. In making those modifications the Certifying Officer virtually substituted for the draft standing orders the model standing orders prescribed by the Government under the Act. Both sides were dissatisfied with the order of the Certifying Officer and therefore presented appeals under Section 6 of the Act before the Appellate authority prescribed under the Act, viz., the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, who is the 1st respondent in the petition. The Employees' Association bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant235; AIR1959Mys235; ILR1959KAR135; (1959)ILLJ531Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner is an association of employees of the respondent 2 the Mysore Kirloskar, Ltd., under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (Central Act XX of 1946), hereinafter referred to as the Act, the respondent 2 filed a draft of standing orders before the Labour Commissioner in Mysore, who is the certifying officer under the Act for certification. Before certifying the draft standing orders, the certifying officer is said to have made many modifications therein. In making those modifications the certifying officer virtually substituted for the draft standing orders the model standing orders prescribed by the Government under the Act. Both sides were dissatisfied with the order of the certifying officer and therefore presented appeals under S. 6 of the Act before the appellate authority prescribed under the Act, viz., the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, who is the respondent 1 in this petition. The Employees' Association being dissatisfied with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant188; AIR1959Mys188
1. This second appeal arises out of a decree in a suit where the plaintiffs sought to avoid the sale transaction purported to have been entered into by their predecessor-in-title on the ground that she was a minor at the date of the transaction. The plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of one Thayamma. She and her brother Chikkanna were owners of the suit property, each having a half and half interest in it.Both of them purported to sell the suit property to defendant 1 under the sale deed Ext. IV dated 24-10-40. After the document was duly executed by both of them, it was taken to the Sub-Registrar for registration. He suspected that Thayamma may not be a major. Although he registered the sale deed as executed by Chikkanna, he declined to register it as executed by Thayamma with an endorsement to that effect below the document. Nothing further appears to have been done to rectify the matter and it appears that defendant 1 continued to be in possession of the whole of the suit property.Def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant83; AIR1960Mys83
(1) One important point of limitation arises in this Second Appeal and that is as to whether the Article applicable is 142 or 144 of the Limitation Act. According to the plaintiffs the property in suit which is a house together with an open site, originally belonged to one Bhimappa Hadapad. After his death it came to his son, who was originally defendant 2 in this case and who has been later on transposed as plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiff's claim to have purchased the suit property from that person on 14-5-1948 for Rs. 200/-. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 entered into possession and made wahivat of it. In June 1948, defendant 1 caused obstruction to the wahivat. Plaintiffs therefore filed a suit in L. C. No. 90/1949 against the defendants. In the meantime, the defendants managed to dispossess plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they entered into possession. Hence this suit was filed for pos-possession against defendants 1 and 2. The defendants denied plaintiff's title to the property and also their possession...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1960]39ITR24(KAR); [1960]39ITR24(Karn)
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioner before us was served with a notice under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 1950-51. The accounting year of the petitioner as shown in his books used to be from the first day of July of a year to the June 30 of the following year. For the accounting year July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1949, he was assessed under the Mysore Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1949-50. On the April 1, 1950, the Indian Income-tax Act came to be applied to Part B States and the Mysore Income-tax Act was repealed. As it will be necessary to be seen hereafter, in certain respects and for certain accounting years, to which I shall have to refer more fully in this judgment, the provisions of the Mysore Income-tax Act were kept in force. For the assessment year 1950-51, the petitioner was served with a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act calling upon him to file a return. On September 8, 1952. the petitioner filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant260; AIR1959Mys260; 1959CriLJ1454; ILR1959KAR407
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrals, First Class, Ramdrug in C. C. No. 331 of 1957. By the afore-said order the learned Magistrate committed the four respondents and nine others to take their trial on charges under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149. 302. 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Coda and 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who perused the records and heard the arguments addressed to him on behalf of the respondents, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate committing the accused in C.C. No. 331 of 1957 to take their trial in the Court of Session without examining all the witnesses who had been cited in the charge-sheet as wit-nesses for the incident is illegal and therefore the order should be quashed.The learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant239; AIR1959Mys239; ILR1959KAR437
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1 and 8 to 17 in Original Suit No. 39 of 1950-51] on the file of the learned District Judge, Mysore. The first respondent is the plaintiff therein. 2. The suit is for partition and delivery of the plaintiff's 2/15th share in the plaint properties with past and future profits. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Naranappa the deceased brother of defendant 1. The genealogical table of the family is given in appendix 'A' of the plaint. The correctness of this genealogy is not disputed excepting the fact that the plaintiff is the adopted son ofNaranappa. Defendants 1 and 8 to 19 resisted the plaintiff's suit on various grounds. As many as 14 issues were framed in the suit. The trial court has decreed the plaintiff's suit awarding him 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties. Further it has allowed him profits from the date of the suit. But the determination of the quantum of profits has been left over for a separ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant267; AIR1960Mys267
Iqbal Husain, J.(1) Though the facts of this appeal are simple, a few interesting questions of law are raised. Chatram Puttappa Sons is a joint Hindu family firm doing business as nut and Mandy merchants at Bangarpet., Kolar District. They are the appellants before this Court. The respondents are some of their creditors. The latter filed an application under the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the Mysore Insolvency Act to adjudge the appellants as insolvents on the ground that the respondent's are unable to pay their debts and have committed acts of insolvency. Though in the petition filed by the respondents several acts of insolvency are alleged, they confine their attention to only one both before the District Judge, Bangalore, as well as before this Court, viz. that they are unable to pay their debts and have given notice of suspension of payment.(2) The appellants sent a registered notice to several of their creditors as per Exhibit P. 4 dated 24-6-1955 that they are unable to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant255; AIR1960Mys255
Hombe Gowda, J.(1) This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Certiorari cancelling the order dated 5th June 1956 passed by the State of Mysore directing that the third respondent should be treated as senior to the petitioner in the cadre of lecturers in the University of Mysore.(2) The facts that led to the presentation of this writ Petition by the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner M. Kamalamma took her Master in Science degree of the University of Mysore in 1937. She was appointed as a temporary III Grade lecturer in Zoology by the then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mysore on a salary of Rs. 75/- per mensem on 11th of August 1939. The third respondent T. P. Vanajakshi who is also a Master of Science having passed the Examination in 1934 was applying for a post of a lecturer in Zoology in the University of Mysore from the date she passed her M.Sc. Examination.The Registrar of the University of Mysore sent replies to h...
Tag this Judgment!