Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-14-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Kant186; AIR1971Mys186; (1971)1MysLJ225
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioner was one of the candidates for election to the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation from the 43rd Division. He presented his nomination paper on the 21st of November, 1970, According to the calendar of events relating to the election, the last date for presentation of nomination papers was the 23rd November, 1970 and the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers was the 25th of November. 1970. At the scrutiny M. Obanna Raju, another candidate for election from the same Division (Impleaded as the 8th respondent in this Writ petition,) raised an objection to the reception of the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the property tax payable to the Corporation by him in respect of his property in Division No. 43. The petitioner produced a receipt for payment of taxes made by him at 3.30 P. M. on the same day, viz., the 25th of November, 1970. According to the receipt, payment made was of taxes for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-20-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Kant125; AIR1971Mys125; (1971)1MysLJ28
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. These seven petitions, in which the validity of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Mysore Act 10 of 1962 as amended by the Mysore Act 14 of 1965), and the Rules framed thereunder is challenged, are heard together. In addition to the declaration that the aforesaid Act and Rules are ultra vires, void and of no effect, they have also sought for an alternative relief for a declaration that the petitioners' holdings which are ryotwari are governed by Section 107 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Land Reforms Act), and thus the provisions of Land Reforms Act do not apply to them. 2. In the first six petitions above-mentioned, the facts are identical. In Writ Petition Nos. 1180 and 3945 of 1968, in addition to the questions raised in the other petitions, a declaration is sought that the petitioners therein are entitled to the exemption provided under Section 107 of the Land Reforms Act as they are tenants of a Religious and Charitable Inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-06-1970
Reported in : [1971]27STC154(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. These are three revision petitions by a common assessee under section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and they are directed against the common order dated 18th March, 1970, made in S.T.A. Nos. 71, 72 and 73 of 1970 on the file of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The assessee was assessed to sales tax for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 by three separate assessment orders dated 17th September, 1969, made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Puttur, South Kanara. By the said assessment orders, a total sum of Rs. 65,101.75 was levied as tax and penalty for the said three years. The assessee preferred three separate appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore Division, Mangalore, under section 20 of the Act. In the said appeals, he made applications for entertaining the appeals without payment of the tax and penalty. He also prayed for stay of the recovery of the said amounts....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-02-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Kant252; AIR1971Mys252; (1971)1MysLJ238
K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, J. 1. The respondent in these two appeals filed O. S. No. 78/70 and O. S. No. 88/70 on the file of the Civil Judge. Civil Station. Bangalore, The earlier suit is one for the recovery of Rs. 21.065/- said to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The second is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,563/- partly towards arrears of rent and partly towards mesne profits and for the recovery of possession of the property. These two cases were being posted together as the parties in both the cases are the same. The cases came up for hearing after series of adjournments on 2-4-1970. On 2-4-1970, the order sheet In O. S. No. 78/70 reads as follows :-- 'Defendant's counsel prays for adjournment. Plaintiff's counsel opposes. Defendant's counsel says, he has to obtaincertain copies and is not ready to get onwith evidence. Adjourned as a finalchance on 14-4-1970 on costs of Rupees15.00'. In O. S. No. 88/70, the order sheet reads as follows:-- 'P. W. 1 examined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-1970
Reported in : [1971]27STC241(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.1. In this writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of the prohibition, prohibiting the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Division I (respondent No. 1) from proceeding further with the rectification proceedings pursuant to his notice dated 16th February, 1970. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in Hubli town in Mysore State. It buys cotton seeds in Mysore State and sells the same in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The petitioner's turnover of sales of cotton seeds effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce for the period 28th April, 1960, to 20th October, 1960, was assessed to tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. Against the said order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent, who, by his order dated 26th October, 1965, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-01-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Kant63; AIR1971Mys63; (1970)2MysLJ442
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench for opinion is: 'Whether the instrument in question is not liable for stamp duty under Item 20 of the Schedule of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957?' 2. The English translation of the document which is in Kannada reads thus: Date 23-1-1963,Sale deed executed in favour of Siddappa s/o Erappa Tiralapur, resident of Karakmukul village, Chinocholi Taluk, District Gulbarga, by Bandappa s/o Sangappa Para, resident of Karakmukul village, Chincholi Taluk, is as follows: The land 'Anehole' bearing Survey No. 157-A, measuring 14 acres and 29 guntas, assessed at 5-57, stands entered in the patta in my name and I havesold the same for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-(Three thousand) of India currency. At present, a sum of Rs. 2,700/- (Rupees two thousand and seven hundred) in cash has been received. I have delivered the said survey number to your possession. I have agreed to receive the remaining amount in the ensuing Uganda day. For getting the patta made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-26-1970
Reported in : (1970)1MysLJ445; [1970]25STC416(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. These are two revision petitions under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner who is a dealer in tiles was assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessing authority levied tax at the penal rate of 10 per cent. since the petitioner did not produce the C Forms in respect of his sales. The petitioner paid the undisputed tax at 2 per cent. and then preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore, questioning the levy of 10 per cent. Along with the appeals, he filed applications for stay of collection of the disputed tax amounts. In his appeal petitions, the petitioner stated that he was not given adequate opportunity to produce the relevant C Forms. He produced the said C Forms along with the appeal petitions. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-08-1970
Reported in : AIR1970Kant297; AIR1970Mys297; (1970)2MysLJ50
M. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is the landlord. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 21 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Mysore Rent Control Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent-tenant and prayed that because the tenant had contravened said provisions, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the saidpremises. The trial Court held that the petitioner has made out the contravention of the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) and (d) of Section 21 (1) of the Act and passed an order of eviction. The appeal filed by the tenant was allowed by the learned District Judge of South Kanara. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner has not made out the contravention of provisions of Sub-clause, (b) and (d) of Section 21 (1) and allowed the appeal. In this revision petition, the petitioner challenges the said order passed by the learned District Judge. 2. Shri Ganapathy Bhat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-01-1970
Reported in : AIR1970Kant289; AIR1970Mys289; (1970)1MysLJ512
ORDER1. The petitioners are wholesaleand/or retail dealers in food grains in Mysore State. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have assailed the constitutionality of certain provisions of-(i) The Mysore Food grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licencing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Wholesale Licensing Order); and (ii) The Mysore Food grains (Retail) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Retail Licencing Order). 2. These two Orders were made by the Government of Mysore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and delegated by the Central Government to the State Government under Section 5 of the Act.3. Before dealing with the contentions of the petitioners, it is useful to set out the salient features of these two orders.4. Sub-Clause (e) of Clause 2 of the wholesale Licencing Order defines the term 'Whole- sale dealer' as a person engaged in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-09-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Kant84; AIR1971Mys84; (1971)1MysLJ328
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the appointment of respondent 5 (in both these petitions) as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agricultural Sciences in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the University), has been challenged.2. By the notification dated 5-6 1970, the Chancellor of the University, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (Mysore Act 22 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), appointed respondent 5 (in both these petitions) as the Vice-Chancellor of the University for a period of three years with effect from 12-6-1970.3. The petitioner in W. P. No. 2181 of 1970 is holding the office of the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services in Mysore. He is a graduate in Agriculture and also holds a Master's degree in Dairy.4. The petitioner in W. P. No. 2537 of 1970 claims to be a journalist.5. It is com...
Tag this Judgment!