Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-27-1975
Reported in : AIR1975Kant225; 1975(2)KarLJ316
1. The appellant is the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder obtained an order in H. R. C. 30/68 for possession of the premises in the occupation of the judgment-debtor and filed execution 448/73 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, for delivery of possession. The judgment-debtor contended that the order is inexecutable. The Execution Court Over-ruled the objections of the judgment-debtor and allowed the application of the decree-holder praying for permission to break open the lock with police help. Thereupon, the judgment-debtor filed Execution Appeal No. 11/73 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The lower appellate court upheld the objections of the judgment-debtor and held that the order of eviction is inexecutable. It also held that there is a waiver on the part of the decree-holder and that therefore she could not execute the order of eviction. It accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-06-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Kant21; 1975(2)KarLJ300
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of the suit for redemption filed by the respondents. Respondent 1 is the wife of respondent 2. Respondent No 2 executed a usufructuary mortgage of the plaint 'A' schedule properties, which consist of nine items under Ex. P-1 dated 15-3-1943 for Mg. 300/- in favour of one Hukreaowda, who assigned his rights in favour of the appellant-defendant 1 under Ex. D-1 dated, 6-11-1947. The appellant was in possession till a Receiver was appointed by this Court for the 'A' schedule properties as well as the 'B' schedule properties which form the Kumki lands in respect of the 'A' schedule properties. The 'B' schedule properties are alleged to be the accession to the mortgage properties. The equity of redemption was transferred by the second respondent in favour of one Bommanna Gowda on 30th July. 1943 under Ex. P-3. Bommanna Gowda in turn transferred the equity of redemption under the sale deed, Ex. P-2, dated 22-2-1965 to the first respondent.It is also alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-1975
Reported in : ILR1975KAR1008; 1975(2)KarLJ74
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. These appeals by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, II, Hassan, are directed against the common Award and Decrees dated 17th November, 1973 made in L.A.C. Nos. 70 and 77 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Hassan.2. Several acres of wet and dry lands situate in Mandira village, Alur Taluk in Hassan District, were acquired for the Hemavathi Reservoir Project, pursuant to the Preliminary Notification published in the Mysore Gazette dated 2nd January, 1971. The Land Acquisition Officer, in the award made by him under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, fixed the market value at Rs. 2.200 an acre for dry Lands and at Rs. 5,400 an acre for wet lands. The basis of his valuation was the capitalisation of the net income assessed by him. He assessed the net income of the dry land at Rs. 150 an acre and that of the wet land at Rs. 362 an acre. He employed the multiple of 15 and capitalised the net income for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1975
Reported in : [1986]157ITR327(KAR); [1986]157ITR327(Karn)
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question law, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was precluded from directing the Income-tax Officer under section 263 of the Act to levy interest under section 139(1)(iii) ?' 2. The assessment relates to the year 1964-65. The assessee, which is a firm, filed a return of its income for the assessment year in question on April 1, 1966, showing a total income of Rs. 97,469. Subsequently, on February 5, 1968, it filed a revised return declaring a total income of Rs. 1,61,375, which included business income of Rs. 81,757. The return of income had to be filed by December 31, 1964, under section 139(1) of the Act. However, since a notice under section 139(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-1975
Reported in : [1977]106ITR399(KAR); [1977]106ITR399(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These appeals are against the common judgment in W. Ps. Nos. 3447, 3448 and 3578 of 1973 and 1121, 2551 and 2552 of 1974, dated 13th September, 1974, by which the notices issued under sections 8/16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the appellants, were quashed. The facts and circumstances in which the notices had been issued being the same in all the cases, it is sufficient to state the facts relating to W. P. No. 3578 of 1973. 2. M/s. Stumpp. Schuele & Somappa Private Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1971-72 (previous year ending December 31, 1970), assessment was made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the enquiry of December 31, 1971, on a total income of Rs. 26,16,490. Based on this assessment, surtax was computed on December 13, 1971. The Income-tax Officer modified the income-tax assessment by an order dated September 12,...
Tag this Judgment!