Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-04-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Mys64; ILR1962KAR567
B.M. Kalagate, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, against the decree dated 25th November 1960, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 263 of 1959, by which he reversed the decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. The question involved in this appeal is whether the adjustment or appropriation made by defendant 1 is legal and valid. It arises in this way.3. The plaintiff was working as an agent for the Asiatic Government Security Life and General Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore City. With effect from 1-9-1956 this Company was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The plaintiff was a debtor to the Asiatic Government Security Life and General Assurance Company Limited under a compromise decree dated 8th June 1953 in O. S. 256/51-52 for a sum of Rs. 3,106-11-6.Subsequent thereto, a sum of Rs. 600/- due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-27-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Mys115; ILR1962KAR630; (1963)1MysLJ297
1. This appeal which raises an interesting question of law about which there is considerable conflict of judicial opinion was referred to a Bench by Kalagate, J and therefore it is before us. In this appeal the true scope of Section 107 of the Evidence Act comes up for consideration.2. The facts of the case are no more in dispute. Both the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that Parappa the propositus died a few years prior to the suit. He had four sons, viz., Irappa, Maharudrappa, Shivalingappa and Mallappa. Even during the lifetime of Irappa there was a partition in his family. Under the partition the family properties were divided only between the four sons. The two survey numbers, viz., 577/2 and 579/2 of Sattigeri village in Belgaum District had been given to Parappa for his maintenance. In other words these two survey numbers remain undivided. The evidence discloses that Irappa was slightly demented; that he left the family house long time back and that he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-23-1962
Reported in : [1962]13STC993(Kar)
..... maintained could not decline to accept its declared turnover. the third is that the application of a formula for estimating the turnover was not permissible. 8. i first proceed to consider the third submission. 9. section 12 of the sales tax act, 1948, under which the impugned assessments were made reads :- '12. procedure to ..... the financial year of the company : (see the imperial fire insurance company v. wilson ((1876) 1 tax cas. 71)).' 29. then, in the year 1907, the question came before the house of lords in the general accident, fire and life assurance corporation ltd. v. m'gowan ((1907-8) 5 ..... made in his case under section 12(2)(b) of the mysore sales tax act, 1948. 2. the material facts are these :- the petitioner keeps a hotel called the durga lodge at davanagere and a restaurant called sri krishna vilas restaurant at the chitradurga. for the assessment year 1956-57, the turnover declared ..... application of any one of those methods without the examination of its suitability to the case in which it is to be employed even if it has been found to be an efficacious expedient in the case of another dealer carrying on a similar business or trade. the true rule is that the ascertainment of the turnover should in each case be made by the adoption of that method which in the opinion of the assessing authority will assist a just and substantially accurate estimate in that case. it is for him to select that method there being no rule of law as to a proper way of making an estimate. 43 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Mys193; ILR1962KAR527
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The appellant instituted Special Suit No. 16 of 1954 on 7-6-1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hubli (District Dharwar), for three declarations to the effect that the orders of suspension, of reduction in rank and of termination of his services passed respectively on 17-1-1950, 8-1-1951 and 27-3-1951 by the District Transportation Superintendent, Hubli, were illegal and void and that he therefore still continued in the service of the Southern Railways entitling him to the salary and the other emoluments according to rules.2. The facts relevant to the appeal are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated: The plaintiff who entered the services of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway was promoted to the post of Deputy Controller of Trains in 1945 and v/as substantively holding the same on the material date. On 15th January 1950 the plaintiff absented himself from duty. The District Transportation Superintendent, Hubli, wrote him a letter on the...
Tag this Judgment!