Kerala Court November 1956 Judgments
State Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker17
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. The office has raised the question whether the various claims covered by a singel list of debtors of a Banking Company which is being wound up should not each be treated as a separate suit and separate Vakkalaths diretced to be filed by the Advocate appearing for the Court Liquidator and similarly whether an Advocate appearing for a debtor against whom several claims are made under a single list should not file separate Vakkalaths for each of the claims.2. The office note relies upon Rule 18 of the Rules under the Banking Companies Act to say that each claim petition has to be treated as an 'expedited suit' and that each claim must therefore be taken as a separate suit, for which separate Vakkalath has to be filed. Learned Assistant Liquidator would take the other extreme and say that because there is only one Banking Company Liquidation list only one engagement by the Liquidator can toe held to be necessary. 3. But, in my judgment, neither view is correct...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Sait Vs. Income-tax Officer, Alleppey.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1956
Reported in: [1958]33ITR106(Ker)
VARADARAJA IYENGAR, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution field by an assessee under the Income-tax Act and calling in question a rectification order passed by the respondent, Income-tax Officer, Alleppy.2. The petitioner was assessed for the year 1123 under the Travancore Act on 30th July, 1952, by the Income-tax Officer, by accepting the book version of the profits in the Alleppey and Trivandrum branches and adding a sum of Rs. 7,000 in respect of the Kottayam branch. A sum of Rs. 21,134 which was claimed as speculation loss in oil and pepper was also disallowed. After an unsuccessful appeal as regards the disallowance of the loss, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner took the matter before the Commissioner under section 46(2) of the Travancore Act. The Commissioner, by his order dated 18th August, 1951, found that the set-off of the loss required re-investigation and so he set aside the assessment and remitted the matter with a directio...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Joseph Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker3
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant to a suit for refund of amounts alleged to have been paid under a mistake of fact.2. The defendant N. V. Joseph was employed by the Government of India on 27-3-1943, as Assistant Labour Liaison Officer in Assam (A. L. L, O.) for the Travancore State Labour recruited for employment on Defence Projects connected with the second World War. The post as orignally sanctioned was for a period of six month, but the period was later extended as for the duration of war or for such shorter period as may be found necessary. Officially the world war ended on 1-4-1946 and the post accordingly terminated with that date. The Office of the Field Controller of Military Accounts at Poona continues, however, by mistake, to Issue the defendant's salary cheques at the rate of Rs. 450/- per mensem as they used to do, even after 1-4-1946 and up to 30-4-1947.The plaint avers that the defendant drew these excess amounts with the full knowledge of the mist...
Tag this Judgment!Mundan Raman Vs. Kochukunju Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker31
Joseph, J. 1. This appeal arises from an order in execution of a decree for recovery of possession of property with rent past and future. The decree was passed on 31-1-1950. The first execution petition filed on 26-10-1950 was dismissed for default on 19-2-1951. The next execution petition was filed on 23-7-1955 and the prayer was for recovery of the amount decreed as rent. The judgment-debtor filed objections contending that execution of the decree was barred by limitation and that the amount claimed was not due. These objections were over-ruled and he has preferred this appeal.2. The two points which arise for decision are:(1) Whether execution is barred by limitation? and (2) Whether the amount claimed by the decree-holder is due under the decree3. As regards the question of limitation, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the decree was not a registered one and that the second execution petition being one filed beyond a period of three years from the date of di...
Tag this Judgment!indo-mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, Quilon Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker58; [1956]29ITR619(Ker)
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. having its registered office at Mattanchery, Cochin, and carrying on banking business at various places including Quilon. The question sought to be raised is about the validity of the assessment to profession tax under the District Municipalities Act of 1116 (Travancore), by the Quilon Municipality, over the income of the Quilon branch of the Bank for the two half years comprised in the year 1953-54. The Commissioner of the Quilon Municipality who is impleaded as the 1st respondent to the petition did not accept the income as returned, but proceeded to assess it at Rs, 25,665 for each of the half years, after disallowing the deduction claimed, of interest on amounts borrowed from the Head Office for purpose of the working capital of the branch, and, imposed a tax of Rs. 644/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, Quilon Municip...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Celastine Vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Quilon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker75
ORDER1. The petitioner is the author of a play the performance of which has been prohibited by Ext. A dated the 15th September 1956. Ext, A reads as follows:.--'Whereas I am satisfied from the report received from the District Superintendent of Police, Quilon and other information, that the drama entitled' 'Ponkurlsu Athava Rendare Laksham' written by Shri. V.G. Celestine, Vaddy, Quilon contains scandalous and defamatory matter and that its performance in a public place is likely to deprave and corrupt persons who are present at the performance.I.P.I. Jacob, Additional District Magistrate, (Ind) Quilon, do hereby prohibit the performance in public of the above drama in any place within this district under Section 2 of the Travancore Dramatic Performance Act 1115'.2. Section 2 of the Travancore Dramatic Performance Act, 1115, is in the following term's:' (1) Whenever Our Government is of opinion that any play, pantomime or other drama performed or about to be performed in a public place...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Pillai Gopala Pillai Vs. Aiyyappan Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker10
M.S. Menon, J.1. The 3rd plaintiff (additional) in O. S No. 112 of 1095 of the District Court of Kottayarn is the appellant before us. In execution of the decree in the suit the appellant applied for delivery of one acre of property in survey plot No. 201/1 of the Kanjirappally North Pakuthy together with the building thereon. The contentions of the respondent (102nd defendant) as summarised by the court below are:'That the 35th defendant, his father, had no rights over the property even on the date of the suit, that the 35th defendant has gifted this property under Ext. I to himself and his mother on 3--6--1095, long before the suit, that the mother Jn turn gifted her rights over the property to him under Ext. II in 1101, that ever since that date, he is in possession of the property in his own independent title, that neither he nor his mother' was a party to this decree, that the decree is not binding on him and his property and that there, fore the plaintiff is not entitled to get p...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabha Pillai Krishna Pillai Vs. Kochu Kunji Amma Pappi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker6
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This second appeal relates to a matter in execution. The assignee decree-holder is the appellant. The decree sought to be executed was obtained on a hypothecation bond executed by the deceased Rama Varma Thampan who was the husband of defendant 1 and the father of defendants 2 to 7. An assignment of this decree was taken from the original decree holder by the husband of defendant 1 and when the assignee decree holder applied for execution defendant 7 contended inter alia that the assignment was taken benami for defendant 6 and should not therefore be recognised. This contention was upheld by the execution Court and the appeal which the assignee decree holder filed against the execution Court's order was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The assignee decree holder has therefore filed this second appeal.2. The reliance placed by the Courts below on Order XXI, Rule 16, C. P. C. is out of place for, as has been held in Anantha Narayana Iyer v. Gana-pathy Subbier, ...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Chacko Vs. State of Travancore Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker7
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is an acting clerk in the Taluk Office, Deviculam. In May 1956 he was working in the Taluk Office at Kottayam and for certain activities of his on 28-5-1955 while stationed at Kottayam the following charge-sheet (Ex.A) was delivered to him on 14-7-1955:'It has been brought to the notice of Government that Sri V. C. Chacko, Clerk Taluk Office, Deviculam has violated many of the provisions of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and on a preliminary enquiry, I am satisfied that there are grounds for proceeding against him. The following charges are therefore framed against him. (1) He is taking active part in the activities of the peace-council sponsored by the Communist Party. (2) He has participated in the deliberations held on 28-5-55 at Best Hotel, Kottayam, under the presidency of Professor Joseph Mundassery and took part in the discussions on the actions of Government. (3) He has put question for elucidation in the said meeting regarding the p...
Tag this Judgment!Pouloth Paranchu Vs. Pappu Francis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker21
T. K. Joseph, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money from two defendants. The suit, as originally framed, was one on the basis of a promissory note, Ext. A, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 30-3-1124. The plaintiff's case was that the two defendants were carrying on business in partnership and that timber was purchased from him by the partnership. A sum of Rs. 4,500 was due to him as price thereof, and the first defendant, who was the managingpartner, executed the promissory note for that amount it was alleged that the promissory note was executed on behalf of the partnership. Several part payments were made by the partnership thereafter, and the suit was for recovery of the balance amount. 2. The first defendant remained ex parte. The second defendant contended that the promissory note was executed by the first defendant in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the partnership and that he could not be made liable on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »