Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1979]117ITR828(KAR); [1979]117ITR828(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year is 1969-70. The return of income was due to be filed by it in respect of the assessment year on or before June 30, 1969. A notice under s. 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was served on the assessee on July 3, 1969. In spite of this and several other notices that were issued under s. 142(1) of the Act, the return was filed only on December 16, 1970. The ITO, therefore, took action under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act to levy penalty and after hearing the assessee levied a penalty of Rs. 17,720 under s. 271(1)(a) read with s. 271(2) of the Act. The AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee.2. At the instance of the assessee two questions are referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the Act: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, by the levy of interest calculated under clause (iii) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1958
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere, brought to the notice of this Court through the District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, the two letters written to him by Shivadeva accused dated 10-10-1975/18-11-1975 Ex. p-1 and 30-11-19715/2-12-1975 Ex. P-2 containing language which according to the learned Magistrate was highly contemptuous of this Court. These letters are alleged to have been written by the accused after the Magistrate aforesaid had dismissed his complaint under Sections 447, 500 and 323, I.P.C. against one Narappa and Rajashekarappa after obtaining the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Davangere Town Police Station to whom the complaint had been referred for enquiry and report under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C.2. This Court, on perusal of the aforesaid letters written by Shivadeva accused, issued notice to him to show cause. In pursuance of the show cause notice, he appeared in Court and when questioned as to whether the two letters in q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1976Kant174; 1976(1)KarLJ349
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Venkataramiah, J.2. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to Kasturba Medical College at Manipal (respondent-2). In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed for quashing Rule 3 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He has also prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-2 to affirm his admission to that College ignoring Rule 3 of the Rules.3. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is useful to state the set up of Medical Colleges in Karnataka State and how students are admitted to them.4. In Karnataka State, the State Government has been running 4 Medical Colleges at Mysore, Bangalore Hubli and Bellary and there are 5 non-Government Medical Colleges including respondent-2 College. These private Medical Colleges do not get any grant in aid either from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1976Kant33; ILR1976KAR94; 1976(1)KarLJ13
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of two lands bearing Survey Numbers 82 and 89/A of Harapanahalli village. Respondent No. 2 applied to the Land Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Karanataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as amended by Act 1 of 1974 requesting it to declare that he was the tenant in possession of the said lands and that he was entitled to be registered as an occupant. Pursuant to the said application, notice was issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner under Section 48-A (2) of the Act to show cause as to why action should not be taken on the application made by respondent No. 2.2. At the hearing of the cm before the Tribunal one Mr. B. P., an Advocate by profession filed a power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and requested the tribunal to permit him to art as agent of the petitioner, in that case. The Tribunal declined to entertain the power-of attorney filed by Mr. B. P. and to permit him to condu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1975Kant158; ILR1975KAR691; 1975(1)KarLJ253
1. This appeal relates only to an item claimed as to costs. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 45/69 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga. They filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money due on accounts against a firm of which the appellant, who was defendant No. 4, and three others, on the ground that they, as partners of the said firm, were liable for the claim. Defendants 1 and 3 entered into a compromise. Accordingly the suit was decreed against them. Defendants 2 and 4 contested the claim of the plaintiffs. The defence of defendant No. 4 was that he was not one of the partners of the firm consisting of defendants 1 to 3 and the claim against him was not sustainable. The Civil Judge came to the conclusion that defendants 1 to 3 were only the partners of the firm and not defendant No. 4. He, therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against defendant No. 4. The learned Civil Judge awarded costs to the plaintiffs against defendants 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1975Kant31; ILR1974KAR95; 1974(1)KarLJ265
1. This appeal is fifed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order passed in M. C. No. 8 of 1972 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhar-war, directing the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 100 p. m. by way ofmaintenance pendente lite, and Rs. 100 towards expenses of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife The respondent filed M. C. No, 8 of 1972 against the appellant for a decree for judicial separation. During the pendency of the said case she applied to the Court below for making an order in regard to the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. She stated in the course of the said application that the income of the appellant was in the order of Rs. 300 p. m. and she was entitled to maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 200 per month and Rs. 150 towards the expenses of the proceedings. The respondent pleaded that his income was in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1975]45CompCas238(Kar); ILR1973KAR1030; (1973)2MysLJ156
E.S. Venkataramaiah, J.1. The above appeal is filed against the decree passed in the suit, Original Suit No. 72 of 1962, on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, by the first defendant therein, the Canara Bank Ltd. After the nationalisation of the said bank, the Canara Bank has been brought on record as the appellant. The suit was instituted for and on behalf of the Canara Sales Corporation Ltd., Mangalore, by its managing director, V. S. Kudva, who died during the pendency of the suit. After his death, the suit was continued by L. V. Kudva as the managing director of the plaintiff. The second defendant was one Y. Venkatesha Bhat who was the chief accounts officer of the plaintiff up to the year 1961. The second defendant died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record.2. The suit was instituted against defendants Nos, 1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,26,047.92 on the basis of the following allegations made in the plaint: The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1973Kant145; AIR1973Mys145
Venkataramiah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the decree passed in O. S. No. 5 of 1964 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge at Bangalore. The above suit was originally instituted as O. S. No. 2 of 1958 on the file of the District Judge. Civil Station at Bangalore and on reorganization of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under the Maysore Civil Courts Act. 1964. the suit stood transferred to the file of the First Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The plaintiffs who are three in number claiming to be the trustees of a trust known as 'Kulsum Bibi Trust' instituted the above suit for recovery of three items of immovable properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint. Items 1 and 2 are two buildings and Item 3 is a vacant site situated in that part of Bangalore City which was formerly known as Civil and Military Station. Bangalore. The case of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Peer Khwaja Mod,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant342; AIR1971Mys342; (1971)2MysLJ384
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner who is a stage carriage operator has challenged In this writ petition the validity of Rule 216 (2) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules. 1963, hereinafter called the 'Rules' on two grounds: (1) that it is ultra vires of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, hereinafter called the 'Act' and (2) that it violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and therefore void.2. Rule 216 as it stood prior to its substitution by notification No. GSR 360 dated 7th October. 1969 (HD 42 TMR 68) had provided only for limiting the maximum seating accommodation of public service vehicles other than motor cabs. Rule 216 as substituted by the said notification reads as follows:'216. Limit of Seating Capacity:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 214 regarding seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver and conductor that a Public Service Vehicle other than a Motor cab, may be permitted to carr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1640
K. Bhimiah, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Sessions Case No. 9/8 of 1968. The appellant has been found guilty of the offence Under Sections 324 and 302 IPC both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The accused Thippanna, deceased Gundappa and the injured Narappa are the residents of the locality of Beeron Quilla, Raichur. The house of the accused is near the top of the hillock and the houses of the injured Marappa and the deceased Gundappa and other persons are near the hillock on a lower level. There is also a Hanuman temple on the top of the hillock and there is a street light in front of the said Hanuman temple. Marappa has an unmarried sister by name Nagamma. Marappa and his younger brother Gaddeppa and their parents all reside in the same house along with their sister. The incident took place on 15-12-1967 at about 7-30 p. m. in front of the house of the appellant. The appellant is alleged to ha...
Tag this Judgment!