Kerala Court December 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.
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Aluminium Factory Workers' Union, Alwaye ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Ker37; (1958)IILLJ403Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the Indian Aluminium Company Limited, Alwaye, and the two respondents are the workmen of the said Company represented by the Aluminium Factory Workers' Union, Alwaye, and the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum. 2. The petition questions the validity of Ex. P. 2, an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, dated 25-4-1957. The order overruled the contentions of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the reference and posted the case for evidence on the issue referred for adjudication, namely - 'Is the discharge of Sri M.P. Mathai justifiable? If not, to what relief is he entitled?' 3. The preliminary objections were: 1 that Mathai was not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; 2 that Exs. P. 3 and P. 4, the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, in adjudication Nos. 4 and 5 of 1951, precluded the Union from contending that he was a workman within the meaning o...
M. Ramiah Pillai Vs. P.A. Sankaranarayana Iyer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker246
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money. Defendants 1 and 2 were the Directors of a Bank known as the Trivandrum Bank Ltd., which is now in liquidation. Plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are father and sons, had deposited various amounts in the said Bank and a sum of Rs. 4500 was due to them from the Bank in November 1939 on account of deposits which had matured and become repayable in August and September 1939. The plaintiffs' case is that these deposits were made by them on the personal request and assurances of safety made by defendants 1 and 2, the Directors of the Bank, and that, since there was a Bank crisis in November 1939, at the request of defendants 1 and 2 they allowed these deposits to remain in the Bank in order to help it and inspire confidence among its depositors on a written agreement, Ext. A, given by defendants 1 and 2 on 29-11-1939 undertaking to return the amount with interest at 6 per cent., per year within twelve months.The personal liability underta...
State Vs. Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker366
T.K. Joseph, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for breach of a contract. On 30-4-1934 the plaintiff entered into contract with the Chief Engineer, Water Works and Drainage Department of the State of Travancore for executing part of the work in the construction of the high level service reservoir of the Willingdon Water Works Trivandrum. The plaintiff's case is that on 13-7-1934, the Executive Engineer acting on the orders of the Chief Engineer stopped the work which he was doing and thereby committed breach of the contract.As required by the Executive Engineer the plaintiff submitted bills on 17-7-1934, 18-7-1934 and 7-3-1935 claiming a sum of Rs. 8,475--Chs. 7 Cash 3 on account of work done till 13-7-1934, and the cost of materials taken over by the department. He further contended that the Department was hound to pay him the amount within 10 days of receipt of the bills. Besides the above sum, the plaintiff also claimed compensation at the rate of 15 per cent. on...
Narayanan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker174
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg, Bangalore, under Section 109 (2) of the Cochin Income-tax Act, 6 of 1117. The questions referred are:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer was correct in making the assessments for the years 1120 and 1121 M. E. under the 8 year rule of limitation under Section 44 of the Cochin Income-tax Act.(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner's order dated 15-12-1954 cancelling the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order is barred by limitation.'2. Section 44 of the Cochin Income-tax Act, 6 of 1117 deals with income escaping assessment. Sub-section (2) of that section (omitting the proviso) reads as follows:'No order of assessment under Section 28 or of assessment or re-assessment under Sub-section (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry, in any case to which Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 38 applies...
Thoppil Kutti Eroor Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR850(Ker)
This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg, Bangalore, under section 109(2) of the Cochin Income-tax Act (VI of 1117). The questions referred are :'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer was correct in making the assessments for the years 1120 and 1121 M.E. under the 8 year rule of limitation under section 44 of the Cochin Income-tax Act (2) Whether in the circumstances of the case the Commissioners order dated December 15, 1954, canceling the Appellate Assistant Commissioners order is barred by limitation ?'2. Section 44 or the Cochin Income-tax Act (VI of 1117), deals with income escaping assessment. Sub-section (2) of that section (omitting the proviso) reads as follows :'No order of assessment under section 28 or of assessment of re-assessment under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry, in any case to which clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 38 applies, of the year in which ...
K.M. Kunjuraman Vs. Tahsildar, Chirayinkil Taluq and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Ker341; [1958]34ITR169(Ker)
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. This is an application under Article 229 of the Constitution for the issue of writs in the nature of quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari, to quash proceedings taken by the 1st Respondent, the Tahsildar of Chirayinkil, under the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of income-tax due from the petitioner. The 2nd Respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Trivandrum, who assessed the petitioner to income-tax. The Tahsildar had attached the properties of the petitioner and this application was filed when the properties were brought to sale. The petitioner's case is that under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act the Collector alone can take proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of' income-tax and he cannot delegate that function to the Tahsildar. ' The application is opposed by the 2nd Respondent.2. The objection regarding the validity of the proceedings taken by the 1st Respondent is that under the proviso to Section 46(2) The ...
Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural In ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1957
Reported in: [1959]37ITR549(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - These references under section 60(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, raise a common question in I. T. R. Nos. 15 (assessment year : 1953-54), 18 (assessment year : 1951-52) and 19 (assessment year : 1952-53) is Travancore Rubber & Tea Company Ltd., Alleppey; and the assessee in I. T. R. No. 16 (assessment year : 1953-54) is the Murphy Estates Ltd., Pathirapally. In I. T. R. Nos. 15 and 16 the Appellate Tribunal (Sri Nandana Menon) rejected the contention of the assessees dismissed the appeals and in I. T. R. Nos. 11 and 19 the Appellate Tribunal (Sri Velu Pillai) accepted the contention of the assessee and allowed the appeals.The question arising for decision is identically worded in all the four references, the only difference being as regards the accounting years and the amounts concerned. The question referred in I. T. R. No. 15 of 1955 reads as follows :'Whether under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, in calculati...
State of Kerala Vs. Othenan Koran Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker168; 1958CriLJ760
Raman Nayar, J.1. The question raised in this appeal against acquittal is whether standing crops are movable property within the meaning of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act (Act II of 1864). 2. The accused, a person owning land in the village of Kunhimangalam, in the former district of Malabur where the Madras Revenue Recovery Act is in force, was admittedly in arrear with the revenue to the extent of Rs. 16-13-0. The prosecution case is that on the authority of the warrants, Exts. P-l and P-2 both dated 16-1-1957, duly issued to him by the Tahsildar of Cannanore under Section 8 of the Act, PW 1 the Adhikari of the village, attached the crops standing on the accused's land on 23-1-1957. This was after Pw 1 had shown the accused the written demand in Exts. P-l and P-2 and the accused had declined to pay the money on the ground that he had no money with him. The accused also declined to accompany Pw 1 to his land for the purpose of witnessing the attachment. But soon after the attachment ...
K. Balagangadharan Vs. Regional Transport Board, Quilon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker144
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner questions the validity of four temporary permits issued by the 1st respondent (Secretary, Regional Transport Board, Quilon) to the 2nd respondent (Director, State Transport, Department, Trivandrum) under Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Two of the permits are in respect of the route, Chenganoore -- Alleppy, and the other two are in respect of the route, Thiruvelia-- Alleppy.2. The circumstances under which the four temporary permits were issued to the 2nd respondent are detailed by him as follows in his affidavit dated the 2.3rd October 1957:'The Revenue District of Alleppey started functioning as from 17-8-1957 under Notification No. B. 2-1670/57/RD dated 13-8-1957. The Taluks of Thiruvella and Chenganoore among others which originally formed part of the District of Quilon were included in the Alleppey District as under the aforesaid notification. There was, in consequence, a large demand from the public of these Taluks that direct transp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›