Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-08-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13
A. Naravana Pai, C.J. 1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-08-1971
Reported in : (1972)ILLJ379Kant; (1971)2MysLJ311
ORDER1. The petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioner that the appellate authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46(2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants. 2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities if any, in the report of the enquiring officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-26-1971
Reported in : [1972]86ITR812(KAR); [1972]86ITR812(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. These are two revision petitions preferred by two assesses who are brother under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The short question that arise in both these revision petitions is whether the provisions of section 12(e) and (g) read wiith section 3(2) of the Act are applicable in the matter of assessment to super-tax under Chapter VII-A of the Act. 2. The assessments relate to the assessment year 1966-67. The petitioners claimed rebate of income-tax as well as super-tax on the life insurance premia paid and donations made under section 3(2) read with section 12(e) and (g) of the Act. They were allowed rebate of income-tax but such rebate was disallowed on the super-tax. 3. Section 53A levies an additional tax referred to as super-tax on the total agricultural income of the previous year of any person at the rate or rates laid down in Part I-A of the Schedule of the Act. Section 53B states that the total agricu...
Tag this Judgment!