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.
Jos Chacko Poothokaran Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam Circle.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR648(Ker)
M. S. Menon, J. - Exhibit B dated 13th September, 1954, an order of the Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam Circle, Ernakulam, under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, concluded as follow :'It is evident therefore that the assessee was guilty of suppression of income. Thus, considering all aspects of the case, a penalty of Rs. 750 is imposed after obtaining the Inspecting Assistant Commissioners previous sanction. This will be adjusted from the refund of Rs. 6,417-10-0 in respect of 1952-53 assessment.'2. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Trivandrum. Exhibit C dated 29th November, 1956, is the order in appea :'This is an appeal against the levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c) for concealment of income by the appellant. The penalty had originally been contested on merits but at the hearing Mr. Chummar questioned the legal validity of the penalty order itself. He pointed out that no hearing had been given ...
Raman Ezhuthassan Vs. V. Devassi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker380
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These two appeals arise respectively out of two connected suits O. S. 183 of 1123 and O. S. 154 of 1124 on the file of the Trichur District Court relating to a contract of hire of an engine. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the sole defendant in both the suits are the same. The common 2nd plaintiff is the appellant in both the appeals.2. The plaintiffs 1 and 2, Sankaran and. Raman Ezhuthassan were the owners of a 12--14 H. P. Stcn Hornsby Engine having purchased it second-hand and were working their 'Sivaram Rice Mill Vilangan'' therewith. They gave this engine and its accessories on hire to the defendant Devassy, under Ext. A agreement executed by him on 14-51123, for a period of three months commencing 15-5-1123 for purpose of draining water from certain 'Kole Nilam.'Under Ext. A terms the defendant had to pay towards hire a total sum of Rs. 900/- of which ene-half was payable at date of agreement and the other half a month later, on 15-6-1123, The defendant acknow...
Veeravunni Haji Vs. Koyammu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker169
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. The defendants 1 and 2 are the special appellants.2. The suit was for redemption of what according to the plaintiff-respondent was a mortgage executed by his assignor Pokker in favour of the 1stdefendant and assigned by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. Ext. B1 which evidences the transaction was executed on 15-7-1949 and styled itselfas an 'avadhi teer' or sale with a limit of time. The consideration of Rs. 100 raised under it was recited to be for the purpose of depositing the rent due from the executant to the jenmi of the property in respect of certain other items. On the date of the deed Pokker surrendered possession of the property to the transferee 1st defendant with liberty to enjoy and deal with the property as if he was the owner but subject to the reservation that if repayment of the consideration of Rs. 100 was made Within two years the property would be reconveyed by the 1st defendant. If however repayment was not made within that period, Po...
Gannon Dunkerley and Co., Madras (Private) Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker146; [1957]8STC347(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner (Cannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) (Private) Ltd., was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Mattancherry, on a total turnover of Rs. 2,23,197 in respect of the period 1-4-1955 to 31-3-1956. A portion of the said turnover, viz., Rs. 1,96,486 relates to 'works contracts' and it is the liability to assessment of that portion of the turnover that is challenged before us.2. Ext. A, the order of assessment dated 31-10-1956, shows that the sum of Rs. 1,96,486 was arrived at as follows:'M.E. S. Department Willigdon Island.Rs.1,26.546-0-0PowerHouse construction at Per-unjalkuthu.Rs.1,04,762-0-0CaltexPetrol Pump at Ernakulam.Rs. 19,058-0-0 30,328-0-0Rs,2,80,694-0-0Less 80%' ... ... ...RS. 84,208-0-0BalanceturnoverRs.1,96,486-0-03. Section 2 (1) of the Travahcore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 defines the expression 'works contract' as follows:''works contract' means any agreement for carrying out for cash or for deferred payment or othe...
Subraya Shanbhogue Vs. Kunhippa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker143
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This revision arises out of an application filed by the respondent-tenant before the Court below on 9-4-1955 under Section 3 (3) of the South Canara Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act (Madras Act VI of 1954) as amended by Act II of 1955. The prayer was for acceptance of a deposit of the rent due to the landlord for the year ending Vishu 1955 under a Chalgeni lease dated 24-4-1950 and filed in the case Ext. B-14. This lease deed was for a term of one year and the rent reserved of 50 murahs of paddy and Rs. 18 was made payable in three instalments, 25 murahs of paddy by the 30th Thulam from the Karthigal crop. 25 murahs of paddy by 30th Magha Bahula from the Suggi crop and Rs. 18 by the 10th March 1951.The objection was raised by the revision petitioner herein, who was entitled to recover the rent as the usufructuary mortgagee from the landlord that the deposit was out of time, as made more than a month after the first arid second instalments of the paddy p...
Janaki Amma Krishnamma Vs. Raghava Panicker Sreedhara Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker94
Raman Nair, J.1. We see no merits in this Revision Petition by an Ezhava wife against an order passed under Section 11 of the Travancore Ezhava Act, 3 of 1100, dissolving her marriage with the Respondent.2. Two grounds are urged, both to our minds equally unsustainable. The first is that the order of dissolution was premature in that it was passed before the expiry of the period of 6 months prescribed in Section 11 and that it is therefore illegal. The petitioner's wife took notice of the petition for dissolution and entered appearance on 3-3-1955. It was only on 9-1-1956, more than nine months later, that the order of dissolution was passed, and hence it is clear that there was due observance of the provisions of Section 1.1.It is nevertheless argued that the order was premature and it is said in support of this argument that the period from 27-5-1955 to 10-12-1955 when an enquiry which the trial Court had ordered into the grounds of the proposed dissolution (which order was against t...
Sankara Pillai Vs. Balakrishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker141
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the 2nd defendant and arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of property on ground of trespass.2. The disputed properties are denoted by the two schedules A & B attached to the plaint. They form separate portions of a single sub No. 100 in minor-circuit No. 1 of the Perinad Paku-thy in Quilon Taluk. This sub No. 100 was originally Kayal poramboke and was registered in the name of the plaintiff's ancestor in 1091. Besides the sub No. 100 the plaintiff owned three other sub Nos. 69, 77 and 101/B all lying in one stretch. In or about 1109 the plaintiff applied before and got the Revenue authorities to demarcate all these sub Numbers, except as regards sub No. 100 which they felt themselves unable to carry out for want of records.The plaintiff thereupon approached Government with the result that the entire minor circuit was surveyed when it was found that only 7 out of the 35 cents of the sub No. 100 was available at spot and i...
V.T. Thomas Vs. Secretary, Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker187
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner applied for a renewalof the stage carriage permit issued in respect of his has, T. C. Q. 2651. The application was rejected by the Secretary of the Central Road Traffic Board (1st respondent) by an order dated 15-12-1956 on the ground that it was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 195 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952.2. It is clear from Rule 144 of the Travaucore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952, that the Central, Road Traffic. Board may delegate its power to deal with such an application to its Secretary and it is not disputed before me that the Central Road Traffic Board did, as a matter of fact, delegate the necessary power to the 1st respondent.3. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal and Ext. A dated 6-1-1957 is the order of the District Judge of Trichur dismissing his appeal. Ext. A reads as follows.'This, appeal has been preferred' against the order of the secretary, Central Road Traffic Board,dated 15-12-1...
Thomman Thresia Vs. Pothen Chako
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker155
Kumara Pillai, J.1. The only question for decision is this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. According to the plaint allegations, one Kumaran Nair had taken an assignment of a decree for redemption of certain mortgaged properties which were in the possession of the plaintitfs, the defendant and other persons, and as the plaintiffs desired to obtain from him a sale of the equity of redemption they entrusted a sum of Rs. 900/- to the defendant, who was an acquaintance of the said Kumaran Nair, for negotiating the sale. The defendant was to settle with Kumaran Nair the terms of the sale and pay to him as advance the amount entrusted, and at the time of the execution of the sale deed this advance was to be adjusted against the sale consideration payable by the plain-tiffs and they were to pay only the balance sale consideration. Alleging that the defendant did not pay the amount to Kuinaran Nair and obtain from him the sale for them in pursuance of the terms...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›