Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant135; AIR1962Mys135; ILR1962KAR257
Hegde, J. (1) This appeal arises out of proceeding under S. 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter. The parties to this appeal are relations. The appellant as the plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 1954 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, praying that the award made and signed by defendants 1 and 2 on 7-1-1950 or a signed copy of the same be caused to be filed in Court and judgment according to that award be pronounced. Some of the parties to the award raised various objections to the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff. On the pleadings, the Court below raised three preliminary issues. They are :'1. Is this suit in time ? 2. Is the award before the Court void as contended and 3. Is the suit barred under S. 32 of the 'Act' 'It answered the first and their third issues in favour of the plaintiff. But, under issue No.2, it held that the award is vitiated as the Arbitrators have contravened clause (2) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant140; AIR1962Mys140
Sadasivayya, J.(1) This Regular Appeal is against the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 41/54 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Dharwar.(2) Plaintiff Shivappa brought the suit before the lower Court, for partition and possession of the suit properties which consisted of some lands, three houses and certain movables. The Plaintiff's case was that Fakirava, defendant No. 2 had taken him in adoption on 14-8-1952 to her (defendant 2's) husband Channappa who appears that have died some thirty years prior to the institutions of the suit. One Fakirappa (who is stated to have died shortly after the death of Channappa) was the father of the said Channappa. Defendant No. 1 was another son of the said Fakirappa by his Udki wife Fakirava, while Channappa was Fakirapp's son by his regularly married wife Iravva. Defendant No. 3 had been impleaded on the ground that though he had no right to any of the suit properties, he had been in possession of the lands claiming to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant189; AIR1962Mys189
(1) The only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the alienation in favour of the respondent effected on 3-3-1949 by Nanjundiah is hit by the doctrine of is pendens. (2) The material facts are as follows : (3) The appellants-- defendants sued the afore mentioned Nanjundian M.O.S. No. 126/45-46 on the file of the Munsiff at Hassan seeking partition and possession of three-fourth share in the southern half of survey No. 21/1 of Kittanakere village to the plaintiff -respondent. At the time of the sale in question, a Civil Revision Petition arising form O.S. No. 126/45-46 was pending in the High Court. In the High Court, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint by substituting the northern portion other S. No. 21/1 in the place of the southern portion originally mentioned. The application Fundamental Rules amendment was allowed and the amendment in question was made on 4-8-1949. The respondent was not a pretty either to O.S. No. 126/45-46 or to C. R.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1962]13STC578(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. In these petitions the true scope of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act' comes for consideration. 2. The petitioners in these cases are dealers in raw silk. The period with which we are concerned in these cases is from 1st July, 1957, to 31st March, 1958. 3. It may be remembered that Article 286 of the Constitution stood amended as a result of the Constitution Sixth Amendment Act. The amended Article 286(3) which is relevant for our purpose reads thus : 'Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade a commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may be law specify.' 4. It is in pursuance of the amended provisions contained in clauses (2) and (3) of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1962]13STC583(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. These are connected matters. They arise out of the same order. But we shall first take up for consideration C.R.P. No. 964/61. 2. The question for consideration in C.R.P. No. 964/61 is whether on the facts and circumstances of that case, the tax liability of the petitioner, under the Central Sales Tax Act, to be referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter, on his inter-State sales can be any more than what it would have been had they been intra-State sales and liable to be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Law. The turnover in question relates to sales effected by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during the period commencing form 1st July, 1957, and ending on 31st March, 1958. The disputed turnover relates to sale of textiles manufactured by means of powerlooms. Under the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948, those goods were liable to be taxed under section 3(2) read with Schedule 1, entry 2(a), of that Act and under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, those...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Kant141; ILR1963KAR183; [1962]13STC508(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J.1. When these cases were posted on the board, they were not clubbed together for hearing. We happened to hear these revision petitions together under circumstances to be mentioned hereinafter. They raise common questions of law and therefore they could be conveniently dealt with in one judgment. We shall first take up C.R.P. No. 864 of 1959. 2. The turnover of the business of the petitioner, who is a dealer in manganese ore in Sandur, Bellary District, was held liable to be assessed to sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary. His order was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner's appeal to the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Case No. S.T.A. 165 of 1958 ended unsuccessfully. Hence this revision petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the disputed turnover is protected by Article 286 of the Indian Constitution as it stood prior to its amendment in 1956 and section 27 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant6; AIR1964Mys6; (1963)1MysLJ477
Narayana Pai, J. 1. These three Writ Petitions are by three unsuccessful applicants for admission into the Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Surathkal, South Kanara viz., B.M. Devadas, B. Raghunath and H. Aruna Prakash praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order requiring or directing the first two respondents in each of these petitions, viz., the Committee for selection ofstudents for admission into the College and the Principal of the College, to admit them into the said College for the five years integrated course of Engineering. Respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petitions Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1961 are H.K. Chandrasekharappa and B.C. Mallikarjuna who have been admitted into the College for the said course. Respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1961 are two ether students, viz., Commonwealth Gomes and Eustace Pais, who have been similarly admitted into the College for the said course. 2. It is common ground that for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963]48ITR808(KAR); [1963]48ITR808(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. The assessee petitioner has prayed in this petition for issue of a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of a write of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent (the Third Income-Tax Officer, City Circle II, Bangalore) from continuing with the collection proceedings under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, to be referred to hereinafter as the Act, in the firm's case (of which he was the quondam partner) for the assessment year 1953-54 in pursuance of the notice of demand dated December 10, 1958, issued by the respondent to him. He has also sought a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari, quashing the collection proceedings before the respondent initiated under section 46 of the Act in the firm's case for the assessment year 1953-54. Then, there is the omnibus prayer asking the court to issue such other writ or writs or orders or directions as the circumstances of the case may necessitate. 2. Before considering the points urge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1964]51ITR479(KAR); [1964]51ITR479(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. In this reference, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench 'B') has referred two questions of law our opinion. They are : '(1) Whether initiation of action under section 34(1) for the purposes of making reassessment for the assessment year 1954-55 has been validly made (2) Whether interest on Mysore Durbar Securities has been rightly held to be chargeable to super-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1956-57 ?' 2. The facts of the case as disclosed by the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal to the extent relevant for our present purpose reads as follows : 3. These two reference applications arise out of the reassessments made upon the assessee, a public company, for the assessment year 1954-55 by taking recourse to the provisions of section 34 and the original assessment made upon it for the assessment year 1956-57. The corresponding previous years are the calend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant197; AIR1962Mys197
Acts/Rules/Orders: Mysore Insolvency Act, 1925 - Sections 9, 11 and 13; Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Section 13; Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 - Section 10; Limitation Act, 1908 - Section 4Cases Referred: Raja Pande v. Sheopujan Pande, AIR 1942 All 429, ILR (1943) All 84; Muradan Sardar v. Secy. of State, AIR 1939 Cal 313, ILR (1939) 1 Cal 425; Chenchuramana Reddi v. Arunachalam, AIR 1935 Mad 857, ILR 58 Mad 794; D. Siddaiah v. B. Rudrappa, AIR 1954 Mys 49, ILR (1954) Mys 281; Chintaman Laxman v. Ramgopal Raghunathdas, AIR 1948 Nag. 385, ILR (1948) Nag 523; State v. Govindan Asan and Sons, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 188, 1952 Cri LJ 901; Gopal Pillai v. Sankara Iyer, AIR 1955 Trav-Co 2, 1954 Ker LT 535JUDGMp>Hegde, J.(1) This appeal raises an infesting question of law which by no means is free from difficulty.(2) The appellants, as petitioners applied to the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in Insolvency case No. 1 of 1953 to adjudge the first respondent dictator as an insolvent. The act...
Tag this Judgment!