Kerala Court March 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.
Chacko Joseph Vs. Varghese Markose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker181
Sankaran, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the loss alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff us a consequence of the fraudulent misrepresentation made by the defendant for inducing him to accept the sale deed Ext. D dated 19-10-1123. Under this document, the A schedule property was conveyed to the plaintiff by defendants 1 to 4 for a consideration of I. Rs. 12771 Chuckrums 26 cash 8 (S. Rs. 13,000). The properly thus conveyed was specified us lying within the well defined boundaries mentioned in the document.The extent of the property also was given as 12 acres and 81 cents. A special indemnity clause was also inserted in the sale deed and it was to the effect that if the property is seen to be subject to any prior encumbrance, the same would be cleared by the vendors themselves and in case of their failure to do so, the vendee will be entitled to recover the consequent loss that may be sustained by the vendee from the 1st defendant and also as a charg...
Ouseph Varkey Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker153; 1957CriLJ1132
Koshi, C.J.1. Ouscph Verkey, the appellant in this criminal Appeal, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Kottayam on two counts under Section 326, I, P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count, with the direction that the two sentences will run concurrently. The case against him was that on 30-7-1950 at about 4-30 p. in. he caused grievous hurt with a deadly weapon, to wit a dagger, on his sister's husband (P. W. 2) and on the laser's father (P. W. 1). The learned Judge accepting the prosecution case convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. We heard the appeal on 25-2-1957 and at the conclusion of the hearing passed orders allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquitting the appellant. That order stated that the reasons therefor will be delivered later. In this judgment we set out the reasons for the decision.2. Paragraph 2 of the judgment of lower court states the prosecution c...
Jusinge Thresiamma Vs. Jusinge Jerome and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker304
K.T. Koshi C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order im-pleading an additional defendant in an interpleader suit. The Bishop of Alleppy who happened to be the stake holder in respect of a sum of Rs. 37,0007- instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises. Defendant 1 won a lottery prize for the value of Rs. 40,000/- & as per the rules of the lottery she was entitled to receive Rs. 37,000/-. Defendants 2 and 3 claimed Rs. 12,000/- out of it under an arrangement with defendant 1, but defendant 1 disputed it and claimed the full amount. As directed by defendant 1 the authorities conducting the lottery sent the full amount of Rs. 37,000/- to the Bishop. From the latter while defendant 1 claimed the entire amount, defendants 2 and 3 claimed Rs. 12,000/- out of it. Hence the interpleader suit by the Bishop.2. Prima facie the appeal is incompetent as Order 43, Rule 1 C. P. C. contemplates no appeal from an order made under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. Presumably the appellant was misle...
Ahmed Pillai Meera Sahib Vs. Sankaran Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker105
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.This Civil Revision Petition is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of the amount under a promissory note. Issues 3 to 5 dealt with the question whether the promissory note was properly stamped and whether it was admissible in evidence. The learned Munsiff heard these as preliminary issues and held against the plaintiff. The revision is directed against the findings on these issues.2. Shri. Subramonian Potti did not canvass thecorrectness of the view taken by the Munsiff and he rightly conceded that that would not properly arise in revision. The point urged was that at an earlierstage of the suit, the document had been admitted in evidence and that the court therefore had no juris-diction to decide the question afresh.3. A similar question arose for decision in Kannu Asan v. Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. 1956 Ker. LT 203 (A). My learned brother Sankaran, J. held that before this objection could be raised, the document should have been admitted in evidence in conf...
The Jaya Motion Pictures Ltd. Vs. A. Ramakrishna Ayyar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker303
Sankahan, J.1. The defendant in a suit for collection of arrears of rent and for evicting the tenant from the building rented out to him, is the appellant. On a prior occasion the plaintiff had applied for the appointment of a Receiver for the building in view of the large arrears left by the defendant and his refusal to pay up the rent. The first court passed a conditional order directing the appointment of a Receiver for the property in case the defendant fails to deposit the rent that had accrued due from the date of suit onwards, within a time stipulated in that order. The defendant filed an appeal against that order. The High Court confirmed the first court's order and dismissed that appeal. Even thereafter the defendant continued to be a defaulter. It was in such a situation that the present order directing the Receiver to take possession of the building so as to collect the rent of it was passed. The defendant has again come up in appeal .2. We see no merit in this appeal. The q...
M. Velayudhan Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR724(Ker)
JOSEPH, J. - This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing certain orders passed by the respondent, the Additional Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the years 1123, 1124, 1950-51, 1951-1952, 1952-53, and 1953-54. Of these, the assessments for the years 1123 and 1124 were under the Travancore Income-tax Act XXIII of 1121 and the rest under the Indian Income-tax Act. The respondent sent certificates to the Collector, Trivandrum, under section 66 of the Travancore Act and 46 of the Indian Act for realisation of the tax and some amounts were paid by the petitioner towards the same. On 17th September, 1955, the respondent passed six orders imposing penalty for non-payment of the tax under the respective orders of assessment and the amounts thus ordered to be paid are stated in paragraph 7 of the petitioners affidavit. According to the petitioner the respondent had no jurisdiction to impose such pen...
Chindan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker166; 1957CriLJ1261
Sankaran, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No. 14/1956 on the file of the Sessions Court at South Kanara, questioning the sustainability of the conviction entered against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The charge against the accused is that on the morning of 4th February 1956, he murdered his uncle Kunhambu Nair by shooting him with the gun which has been recovered and marked as M. O. 1 in the case. The act is admitted by the accused in his statement given by him before the Sessions Judge and the plea of the accused is that he committed the act under grave and sudden provocation and as such the act cannot amount to the offence of murder punishable under Section 302. In the appeal memorandum also the same plea is reiterated and it is urged that the conviction of the accused should only be under Section 304 and not under Section 302 of the Penal Code.2. At the time of the occurrence, th...
Padmanabha Menon Krishna Menon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Souther ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR651(Ker)
ORDERJOSEPH, J. - These petitions are filled by an assessee under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing certain orders passed under section 66(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act, imposing penalty for non-payment of income-tax. The 1st respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Southern Division, Bangalore, and the 2nd respondent the Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum Circle, who passed the orders in question. The petition was assessed to income-tax for the accounting years 1121, 1122, 1123, 1125 and 1126. He did not pay the tax in time and he tool up the matter in appeal. At the time the orders under section 66 were passed, the assessments in respect of the years 1121-1123 were pending before the High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 24 of 1954 and the assessment for the other two years, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. Notwithstanding the pendency of these proceedings in which the validity of the assessments was questioned, the 2nd respondent tre...
T. R. Subramania Iyer Vs. Income-tax Officer, New Delhi, and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR582(Ker)
JOSEPH, J. - This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent is the Income-tax Officer, First Additional Contractors New Delhi, and the second respondent, the Collector of Trivandrum District. The petitioner was a partner of 'V. Industrials', Trivandrum, a firm in partnership carrying on business at Trivandrum. The petitioners case is that the firm was supplying stores to the War Supplies Department of the Government of India in 1942-1943 on the basis of contracts entered into at Trivandrum. The goods were manufactured and delivered at Trivandrum and payment was also received at Trivandrum. The firm had paid income-tax to the State Government for the relevant period. The first respondent also assessed the firm to income-tax for the identical period. The petitioner is not aware of any notice regarding such assessment proceedings except a demand made by the Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, to which he sent a reply denying his liability to pay t...
(Madhava Iyer) Venkitasubramonia Iyer Vs. Catholic Bank of India Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker109
Raman Nayar, J.1. This petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the 3rd Respondent -- Government under Clause 16 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order), an Order made under Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, V of 1950.2. Before stating the facts it might be as well to consider a preliminary objection taken on behalf of the 1st Respondent to this petition, the Catholic Bank of India, Changanacherry, The order complained against was passed on 4-1-1956. The- present petition was filed on 28-5-1956, and it is argued on the strength of the Full Bench decisions reported in Mahadeva Iyer v. State, 1954 Ker LT 427: (AIR 1954 Trav-C 469) (A), and Swaraj Motors Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Alwaye, 1954 Ker LT 443: (AIR 1954 Trav-C 468) (B), that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of unreasonable delay.It was suggested in these decisions that a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »