Kerala Court October 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C.A. Abraham Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker93
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner seeks the cancellation of three orders of the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, Exts. P2 (a), P2 (b) and P2 (c) dated 17-11-1955. Exhibit P2 (a) relates to the assessment year 1124, Ext. P2 (b) to the assessment year 1950-51 and Ext. P2 (c) to the assessment year 1951-52. The concluding portions of the three orders read as follows: Ext. P2 (a): 'Notice under Section 41 was duly served on the assessee on 6-12-1954 and he was directed to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. His explanation is not satisfactory. I, therefore hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed material particulars of income and manipulated accounts. The above offence comes within the purview of Section 41 (1) (c) of the Travancore I. T. Act. With the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,000. This should be paid on or before 17-12-1955. Ext. P2 (b) : 'Notice under Section 28 (3) was duly served on the...
Raman Vs. Sankaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker107
ORDERVaidialingam, J.1. This is a revision by the petitioners in O. P. 20/55, District Munsiffs Court, Kokhikode against the order of that Court rejecting their said application under Section 34 of the Malabar Tenancy Act.2. There is no dispute about the facts in so far as they are relevant to the present proceedings. The petitioners were occupying a Kudiyiruppu and there was a decree for eviction against them in a suit instituted by the landlord namely, O. S. 706/45 District Munsiffs Court, Kozhikode. The decree was on 28-1-1946 and the same became final. Decree-holders claimed to have obtained delivery of possession on 4-10-1946, The delivery is also stated to have been recorded on 11-11-1046.3. The applicants appear to have taken the said delivery proceedings in appeal A. S. 57/47, and in the said appeal there was an order remanding the said proceedings to the trial Court for an enquiry as to whether in fact, there was a delivery or not. No material has been placed before this Court...
C. A. Abraham Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR287(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - The petitioner seeks the cancellation of three orders of the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, Exhibits P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) dated November 17, 1955. Exhibit P2(a) relates to the assessment year 1124, Exhibit P2(b) to the assessment year 1950-51 and Exhibit P2(c) to the assessment year 1951-52. The concluding portions of the three orders read as follows :Exhibit P2(a) :'Notice under section 41 was duly served on the assessee on December 6, 1954, and he was directed to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. His explanation is not satisfactory. I, therefore, hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed material particulars of income and manipulated accounts. The above offence comes within the purview of section 41(1)(c) of the Travancore Income-tax Act.With the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,000.This should be paid on or before December 17, 1955.'Exhibit P2(c) :'Notice under section...
People's Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Parvathy Ayyana Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Ker133
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree and judgment of our learned brother Mr. Justice Joseph, confirming the decrees of the two lower courts.2. There is ho dispute about the facts. The plaintiff is the decree-holder purchaser of the suit properties in execution of the mortgage decree obtained by him in O. S 1875/1104 District Munsiff's Court, Nagarcoil against one Umayamma. The mortgage in his favour was on 12-10-1100 and the decree in the mortgage suit, Ext. A, was on 12-10-1105. He purchased the properties on 28-3-1113 in court sale and the sale was confirmed on 29-4-1113 and he obtained delivery of the properties on 11-1-1117 as evidenced by the delivery receipt Ex-C.3. In the meanwhile, the defendant, in execution of the decree in A. R. C. 6236/1109 appears to have attached the suit properties on [2-10-1110 and ultimately purchased the properties under the said money decree. The defendant also obtained possession on 27-6-1113 as evidenced by Ex. 4...
P.C. Oommen (Molly Motors) Vs. Road Traffic Board, Kottayam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker339
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of certiorari or such appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent, the Road Traffic Board. Kottayam in order to call up the records and proceedings of their order No. K. 49/PT/57 dated 29-7-57 and to quash the said order as ultra vires, illegal, ineffective and void.2. The petitioner's case is that he is a bus-owner operating a service of two buses on the route Kottayam-Iyer-kunnam about 10 miles distance and that he is also operating a service with one bus on the route Kottayam-Thiruvarpu about 5 miles distance. On 29-7-57, the Road Traffic Board. Kottayam, according to the petitioner, sanctioned the 2nd respondent's prayer by extending the permits as prayed for by them on the two routes namely, Kottayam-Thiruvarpu and Kanjikuzhi-Thiruvathuckal.The petitioner alleges that this has been done by the Road Traffic Board without complying with the statutory...
i.i. Iyyappan Mills Ltd., Trichur Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker139
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is the I. I. Iyyappen Mills (Private) Ltd. Trichur. The 1st respondent is the State of Travancore-Cochin, the 2nd, the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the 3rd, the I. I. Iyyappen Mills Workers' Union, Trichur.2. The order impugned in this petition is Ext. B dated 17-4-1956 which reads as follows:'Whereas Government are of opinion that an Industrial Dispute exists between the Managing Director, I. I. Iyyappen Mills Ltd., Trichur and the workmen of the above concern represented by the I. I. Iyyappen Mills Workers Union, Trichur, in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order,And whereas the said dispute had been referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum by order L-4-14248/55/DD dated 21-7-1955 and is pending adjudication,And Whereas since then an Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, has been constituted.And Whereas in the opinion of Government it is expedient to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication by the ...
Kathyee Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. R. Padmanabha Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker88
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is a revision by the 1st defendant in O. S. 147 of 1956, Sub Court, Parur (formerly O. S. 124/55 District Court, Parur) against the order dated 18-12-1956 giving time to the plain, tiffs to pay the additional court lees.2. It is unnecessary be state in detail about the nature of the suit or the reliefs asked for or how these reliefs are to be valued because there was a order on 23-1-1956 by the learned District Judge, Parur before whom the suit was then pending, directing the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and to pay the requisite court fee as indicated in the said order within two weeks.3. The plaintiffs filed a revision, C. R. P. 80/56 to the Travancore-Cochin High Court against this order of the District Court. In revision, Mr. Justice N. Varadaraja Iyengar confirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the O. R. P. with costs. The plaintiffs appear to have filed an application for amendment of the plaint, but the High Court gave the plaintiffs lib...
K.J. Antony Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker59
Sankaran, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Joint Stock Companies department of the Travancore-Cochin State. The first Respondent is the State represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government. The 2nd Respondent is the officer who was functioning as the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies department during the relevant period. From the year 1950 onwards the Joint Stock Companies department of the State was being run by the State on an agency basis under the Central Government and under that arrangement the members of the staff of the department were for all purposes treated as State Government servants and governed by the Service Regulations of the State.The petitioner was selected by the State Public Service Commission, for appointment as a clerk in the Joint Stock Companies department. This selection was made in December 1952 and the petitioner joined duty in the Registrar's Office at Trivandrum on 15-12-1952. Another candidate one Shry. Vijayamma was subsequentl...
Vallabhdas Kanji Ltd. Vs. C.R.D. Bhutji and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker135
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the 1st respondent by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivaridrum, in adjudication No. 22 of 1954 (Ext. P-1). The first of the four issues referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) was :'Whether the discharge of Sri C. R. D. Bhutji from 1-10-1952 is justifiable? To what reliefs is the employee entitled in case (1) the discharge is not justifiable (2) the discharge is justifiable?2. The Tribunal said :'In this case there can be no doubt that the termination of the service of Sri Bhutji was brought about in colourable exercise of the right and the same having been based on extraneous considerations must be deemed to be motivated by victimisation and hence the discharge must be held to be mala fide. I find further that trade reasons were simply made to serve as a cloak and the motive behind the move was to get rid of the services of the e...
Chandrasekhara Iyer and anr. Vs. Sivaramakrishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker142
Vaioialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palghat in O. S. 13 of 1951.2. The suit was for a declaration that the alienation dated 1-8-43 by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant was not valid and binding upon the reversioners to the estate of deceased Srinivasa Iyer, after the life-time of his widow, the 2nd defendant.3. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the divided brothers of one Srinivasa Iyyar, the deceased husband of the 2nd defendant. Srinivasa Ayyar was an employee of the Central Bank of India and he died in October, 1942.4. The 2nd defendant, who is a childless widow pf the said Srinivasa Ayyar, sold some items of properties on 1-8-43 to the 1st defendant for discharging the debts incurred by her deceased husband. The suit itself was for a declaration that the said alienation is not binding on the reversioners namely, the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.5. The plaintiff's case was...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »