Kerala Court March 1958 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.
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Pullangode Rubber ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: [1960]40ITR681(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - Section 5(e) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, provides that the agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deduction, namely,'any expenditure incurred in the previous year (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the plantation.'The respondents claim for the deduction of a sum of Rs. 20,287-4-8 in respect of the assessment year 1955-56 (accounting period : the year ending with 31st March, 1955) was negatived by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tamarasseri, and then by the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kozhikode, in the appeal filed by the respondent under section 31(1) of the Act.The petitioner subsequently moved the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, and succeeded in the appeal. it is the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal that is challenged befo...
Sarah Abraham Vs. Pyli Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker352
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal arises out of O. P. 75 of 1955 filed by Pyli Abraham before the District Court of Kozhikode, under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, IV of 1869, for restitution of conjugal rights as against his wife Sara as the 1st respondent, and her parents and brother as respondents 2 to 4.There was a cross petition O. P. 5 of 1957 filed by the wife Sara against her husband for judicial separation, under Section 22 of the Act. Both these petitions were tried and disposed of together with the result that O. P. 75 of 1955 was allowed while O. P. 5 of 1957 was dismissed, the parties being directed to suffer their costs in both the petitions. The wife has acquiesced in the dismissal of her petition and has come up with this appeal against the decree allowing her Husband's petition.2. The parties are Jacobite Syrian Christians. They married in 1942 when they were aged 25 and 17, There are two children of the marriage born, in 1942 and 1946. Both husband and wife ...
W.N. Mammad Kunhi Vs. W.N. Ibrayani Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker208
G. Kumara Pillai, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money. Plaintiff is me appellant.2. Defendant 1 was the kamavan of a Moplah tarwad. In 1939 there were only two other members in the said tarwad, namely, the plaintiff and his brother, and they brought a suit O.S. No. 103 of 1939, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of South Canara against defendant 1 for partition and recovery of possession of their share in the tarwad properties. Plaintiffs mother died subsequent to the institution of that suit; and after her death a compromise was effected between the plaintiff and defendant 1 and a preliminary decree was also passed in O. S. No. 103 of 1939 on 20-1-1942 in pursuance of the compromise.By the preliminary decree 2/3 of the tarwad properties was awarded to the plaintiff and 1/3 to defendant 1, and it was also provided therein that until the final decree defendant 1 would be in possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 235 in the plaint schedule in O. S. No. 103 of 1939 and the...
K.K. Raghavan Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker62; (1959)ILLJ147Ker
Vaidialingam, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order calling up the records and proceedings and order dated 12-2-1957 of the first respondent in Miscellaneous Appeal 28/1956 and to quash the same along with the order dated 27-2-1957 of the second respondent and also to issue a writ of mandamus to the second respondent to compel them to reinstate the petitioner in service with back pay and other emoluments.2. The first respondent is the Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Ernakulam and the second respondent is the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Tatapuram, Ernakulam represented by its manager.3. According to the petitioner, he was in the employment of the second respondent for about 20 years and that he was also Vice-President of the Tata Oil Mills Workers' Union from about 1948. There was a general strike of the workers of the second respondent in or about February 1955 and the strike ...
Narayana Kekunnaya and anr. Vs. Meloth Chathukutti Nambiar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker94
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. The pfaintiffs, whose suit O. S. 212/1951 for redemption of the mortgage after taking an account has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, are the appellants before us.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the properties mentioned in the schedules A to C of the plaint originally belonged to a tarwad known as the Kuikolari tarwad. The second plaintilf is the present Karnavan of the said tarwad. The properties were usufructuarily mortgaged on 4-9-1888 by the tarwad for Rs. 2000/- to one Meloth Rama of the tarwad of defendants 1 and 2, for a period of 30 years as evidenced by Ex. Bl. Subsequently, for the aggregate amounts then due, the mortgagors executed, on 26-9-1909, a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 5,981/- vide Ex. Al. The mortgage under Ex. At was for a period of 40 years from the date of the expiry of the 30 years mentioned in Ex. B1.According to the plaintiffs, the plaint A and C schedule properties were in the possession of the mortga...
Pottekkat Krishnan Sukumaran Vs. Kunjuvareed Josheph Mundasseri
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker120
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in Election Petition No. 242 of 1957. His petition to set aside the election of the respondent to the Kerala State Assembly from the Manalur Constituency (No. 66) was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Ernakulam, by its order dated the 11th November, 1957. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged by this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. There were three contesting candidates, the petitioner (Congress), the respondent (Communist) and one Govindankutty Nair (P. S. P.) who has not been impleaded either in the petition or in this appeal before us. The polling was on the 11th March, 1957. The respondent secured 23,350 votes, the petitioner 21,355 votes and Govindankutty Nair, 2,486 votes. The result of the election was declared on the 14th March, 1957.3. Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides :'The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a Government...
Padmanabhan Mathevan Vs. Ramaswami Pillai Mathevan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker5
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. The matter arises in execution of the decree, on objection raised by the respondent -- 5th defendant, that the execution of the decree is barred by limitation, as regards personal execution for realisation of the mesne profits, granted under the decree. The court below upheld the objection and hence this appeal by the assignee-decree-holder.2. The decree set aside a mortgage which stood in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of plaint Item No. 3 and allowed recovery of the same, with past and future mesne profits. The decree was passed on 4-3-1121. On 18-10-1123, the first execution application was filed, praying inter alia for recovery of the mesne profits but only 'as a charge against the properties'. The prayer for personal execution against the 5th defendant was for the first time made in the second execution petition dated 22-6-1953, but as by then, more than three years had elapsed from the date of the decree the court below held such prayer was barred...
Manickam Pillai Subbayya Pillai Vs. Assistant Registrar, High Court, K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker188
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. Up to and inclusive of the 31st October, 1956, judges of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin were sitting at Trivandrum and exercising in respect of cases arising in the district of Trivandrum the jurisdiction and powers of a single Judge or a Division Bench of two Judges as determined by the Chief justice. This was under the proviso added to Section 6 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, V of 1125 by Central Act, 38 of 1953. The section with the proviso reads as follows:'Seat of the High Court. The High Court of Judicature of the State of Travancore-Cochin shall sit at Ernakulam: provided that such Judges of the High Court, not exceeding three in number, as may from time to time be nominated by the Chief Justice, shall sit at Trivandrum and exercise, in respect of cases arising in the district of Trivandrum, the jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Act on a Single Judge or a Division Bench of two Judges, as the Chief justice may determine.' A registry ...
M. Abramai Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC780(Ker)
Vaidialingam, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records pertaining to the assessment to sales tax of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent by his order dated 16th March, 1954, for the period from 1--1--1125 to 15--10--1125 and confirmed by the 1st and 2nd respondents and to quash those orders by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate directions and also to pass orders for refund of sales tax illegally levied and collected from the petitioner.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application it is stated that the firm of the Malabar Hides and Skins, Ernakulam, deals in hides and skins and it has been assessed to sales tax for the period 1--1--1125 to 15--10--1125 by the 3rd respondent herein who has fixed the turnover at Rs. 3,09,829-1-9 and has levied a tax of Rs. 4,841-1-0 as due from the firm. Though the demand is for the year 1125, actually the assessment has been made by the officer on 16th March, 1954, i.e., af...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›