Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Kant115; AIR1968Mys115; (1967)2MysLJ185
(1) The appellant is a husband whose application against his wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, was dismissed by the Civil Judge, (After stating the facts in paras 2 and 3, the judgment proceeded :-)(2) The only two witnesses who gave evidence in the proceeding are the two spouses. (After discussing the evidence in Paras, 4, 5, 6 and 7, their Lordships observed).(3) However that may be, the fact remains that after the spouses lived together happily for five or six years, their marriage went on the rocks. We should ask ourselves why the matrimonial career of the spouses was wrecked in that way. An important piece of evidence which provides us with the key to the solution is the evidence of the husband and that given by the wife that after the wife went to her parent's house there was a complaint against the husband to the police charging him with cruelty. The husband admitted--and that is the effect of what he stated--th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-17-1967
Reported in : AIR1969Kant293; AIR1969Mys293
ORDER1. The question for decision in C.R.P. 909 of 1965 is whether the respondent (defendant) is an agriculturist's Relief Act.2. The petitioner before this Court was the plaintiff in O. S. 593/63 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga. The plaintiff brought the suit against defendant (respondent) on two pronotes for Rs. 390 dated 15-7-1957. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant was an agriculturist both at the time when the suit pronotes were executed and also at the time the suit was instituted.It may be mentioned that the suit was instituted on 20th September 1963. The plaintiff relied on the extended period of limitation given by S. 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Munsiff held that the defendant was no an agriculturist as per the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the benefit of the extended period of limitation under Section 24 of the said Act and dismissed the suit. This revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-09-1967
Reported in : AIR1967Kant217; AIR1967Mys217; ILR1967KAR1128; (1967)2MysLJ49
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. This Revision Petition comes be-fore us on a reference made under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961. when this matter came up for hearing before His Lordship Justice Kalagate.2. This Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 25th March. 1965, made by the First Additional Civil Judge Bangalore City, in Original Suit No. 12 of 1964. It purports to he an order on 1. A. Nos. IX and X The learned Judge disallowed both the applications. In the operative portion of the order, the learned Judge stales as follows:'Register the written statement as an application for the purpose of Order 33, Rule 1 of the C. P Code Issue notice to the other defendants and plaintiff in this suit and the Government Pleader. File is posted by 23-4-1965 for objections.'It must be observed that I. A. No IX was an application for the deletion of issue No 13 and I A No. X appears to be an application made by the 7th defendant under Section 151 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-05-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Kant237; AIR1968Mys237; (1968)1MysLJ178
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) This is an unusual case in which the State Government is the applicant for our writs. It asks us to quash a demand for the payment of excise duty on agricultural implements manufactured in its factory known as the Mysore Implements Factory.(2) Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which will be referred to as the Excise Act, imposed excise duty on the excisable goods enumerated in Schedule I to that Act. By finance Act XX of 1962, item 26-AA was added to that schedule. Again, by Finance Act XIII of 1963, another clause was added to item 26-AA.(3) Item 26-AA was added to the first schedule with effect from April 23, 1962 and the new clause introduced into it became effective from April 28, 1963.(4) On July 21, 1962, the Inspector of Central Excise called upon the State Government to pay excise duty amounting to Rs. 24,65-91 P. on the agricultural implements manufactured in its factory, after April 23, 1962. The foundation of the demand was clause (i) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-1967
Reported in : [1968(17)FLR74]; (1968)ILLJ788Kant; (1967)2MysLJ264
1. The appellant is the plaintiff who worked as a clerk under the defendant who is a distributor of petrol in Mangalore. On 16 July, 1958, the defendant terminated the plaintiff's service, and the plaintiff appealed to the appellate authority under S. 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (Madras Act 36 of 1947). On 29 November, 1961, the appellate authority declared the order of termination to be illegal and the sequel to that decision was the suit out of which this appeal arises brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,330 from the defendant. Out of this sum of money, a sum of Rs. 2,325 was claimed by the plaintiff as salary which he would have drawn has not his services been illegally terminated. This sum of money was also claimed in the alternative as damages, and to this sum of money a sum of Rs. 5 was added as expenses of notice. 2. The Munsif gave the plaintiff the decree which he wanted. But the District Judge in the appeal preferred by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1967
Reported in : [1967]66ITR212(KAR); [1967]66ITR212(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The 2nd petitioner, the Madras Bangalore Transport Company, is a firm of four partners, P. V. S. Mani, C. Munireddy, C. Venkatareddy and J. Ramakrishnaiah. Of these, C. Venkatareddy is the 1st petitioner. 2. The firm has its principal place of business at Nos. 36-37, Second Line Beach, Madras City, and is an assessee to income-tax the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VIII, Madras. The firm carries on extensive business as a road transport operator and common carrier with over 200 offices situated in various parts of the country including the Mysore State. One of its branch offices is at No. 34, Infantry Road, Bangalore, and another at No. 14, Second Main Road, Taragupet, Bangalore. Two out of the partners are residents of Banglore. C. Munireddy resides at Nanjappa Road, Shantinagar; Venkatareddy, the 1st petitioner, resides at No. 20(1), Sri M. N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore. The partners also are assessees to income-tax in their i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1967
Reported in : AIR1969Kant226; AIR1969Mys226
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a Muslim wife under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, for the dissolution of her marriage, on the ground that her husband who was impotent at the time of the marriage continued to be so. The spouses were married on June 12, 1960 and the suit for dissolution was brought on October 3, 1960. The husband was at the time of the marriage 20 years and the wife 18.2. The District Judge of Gulbarga recorded a finding on July 31, 1962 that the impotence of the husband was clearly established. But, since the husband had made an application on July 25, 1962 for an opportunity to satisfy the court within a period of one year that he had ceased to be impotent, the District Judge made an order adjourning the proceedings by one year to enable the husband to prove that he had ceased to be impotent.3. On the expiry of the period of one year for which period the suit was adjourned, the wife made an application on August 19, 1963 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-08-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Kant156; AIR1968Mys156
Chandrashekher, J. (1) The petitioners are owners of residential hotels and eating houses. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution they have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 1-6-1967 (Published in Mysore Gazette dated 8-6-1967) issued by the Govt. of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages for different classes of employees in residential hotels and eating houses.(2) At the outset, it is useful to narrate briefly the history of the minimum wage legislation and of fixation of minimum wages in hotel industry.(3) The Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention was held at Geneva in the year (1928). The resolutions of that Convention are embodied in Articles 223 to 228 of the International Labour Code. The object of these resolutions, as stated in Article 224 was to fix minimum wages in industries 'in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulations of wages by collective agreements or otherwise, and wages are excepti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-03-1967
Reported in : [1968]69ITR45(KAR); [1968]69ITR45(Karn)
Narayana Pai, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, made at the instance of the assessee by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire property held by the deceased valued at Rs. 12,23,794 was chargeable to estate duty ?' 2. The deceased mentioned in the question was one Mohammed Hussain Sait, who died on the 22nd of March, 1955. The value of Rs. 12,00,000 and odd mentioned above is the value determined for what the department considered to be the entire property held by the deceased, apparently upon the footing that it was his exclusive separate property held by him exclusively which devolved in its entirety upon his heirs by the rules of Mohammadan law relating to succession. The accountable persons were his two sons, Abdulla Sait and Sattar Sait, who, according to the department, would be some among the heirs of the deceased. 3. The contention put forward by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-06-1967
Reported in : [1968]69ITR401(KAR); [1968]69ITR401(Karn); (1968)1MysLJ1
K.S. Hegde, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from pursuing the collection proceedings in the petitioner's case for the assessment for Faslis 1358 and 1359 in respect of the tax due from his father, late Raja Krishtappa Naik. 2. The material facts are not in dispute. The same may be stated thus : The petitioner's father was assessed to agricultural income-tax under the Hyderabad Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for Faslis 1358 and 1359. For Fasli 1358, the tax assessed was Rs. 1,275-7-0 and for Fasli 1359, the tax assessed was Rs. 1363-3-0. The assesses (Raja Krishtappa Naik) unsuccessfully appealed against the assessment order. Thereafter, he was duly served with a notice of demand. Before the amounts assessed could be realised, he died. Hence, steps are being taken against his legal representat...
Tag this Judgment!