Kerala Court June 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.
Firm Sulaiman Hassan and Sons, Alleppey Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker110; [1959]36ITR169(Ker)
N.V. Iyengar, J.1. This is a reference by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act and the question raised is :'Whether the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act for the Accounting year 1125 M. E. relevant for the assessment year 1951-52'.The assessee was the firm of Sulaiman Hassan and Sons, Alleppey. They claimed registration for assessment year 1951-52, accounting year 1125 by application dated 21-9-1951. The application mentioned the names of the three partners and stated that they shared the profits one-third in the Rupee each and were admitted to the partnership in the year 1125 M. E. but without exact date being given.An instrument of partnership dated 8-11-1126 accompanied the application and a similar instrument dated 15-9-1125 was also produced by the applicants on 21-3-1952. Both these documents did not mention that they took effect from date previous to what they bore. They also...
Union Bank Ltd. Vs. N. Raghavan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker204
T.K. Joseph, J.1. The plaintiff, a Banking Company, is the appellant. The defendant borrower money from the plaintiff from time to time. The suit which was for the balance due was filed more than 3 years after the date of the last transaction. The plaintiffs case was that the amount was due under a mutual, open and current account governed by Article 85 or the Indian Limitation Act. The, defendant contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation.The other contentions of the defendant are not material for the purpose of this second appeal. The trial Court held 'that Article 85 was applicable and the plaintiff was given a decree as prayed for. On appeal it was held that the transaction would not fall under Article 85 and that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal was therefore allowed, dismissing the suit.2. The only point arising for decision is whether Article 85 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The last item of borrowing was on 31-3-1950 and the suit was institu...
Dharamsay Kapurchand Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Mysore Trav ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR787(Ker)
VARADARAJA IYENGAR, J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B under section 113(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121, corresponding to section 66(1) of the Indian Act. The question referred is : 'Whether the remittance of Rs. 25,262 out of the profits made by the assessee in the years preceding the Samvat year 2003 as a resident of Bombay and (not as a resident of Travancore) could be included under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Travancore Income-tax Act in computing the total income of the year of account in which he commenced to be a resident of Travancore ?' The assessment is for the year 1125 M. E. in respect of the accounting period, Samvat year 2004. The assessee became a resident in Travancore in Samvat year 2003. He had previously been carrying on business at Bombay, that is, outside the Travancore state and so made profits to the extent of Rs. 46,613 for the Samvat years 1999 to 20004. A sum of Rs. 45,000 out of this was remitted into the...
N. S. Choodamani and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR676(Ker)
VAIDIALINGAM, J. - On an application made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in its statement of the case, has referred the following questions of law for decision by this court : '(1) Whether the assessee can agitate the legality of section 34 proceedings in the appeal filed by the Department, when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has held against the assessee in the absence of a separate appeal by the assessee (2) Whether section 34 had been rightly invoked (3) Whether as an assessment on the association of persons is valid in law and (4) Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that the business belonged to Choodamani and Harihara Iyer as an association of person ?' Before going into the circumstances which has caused this reference, we may straightway say that question No. 1 does not arise for the reasons mentioned hereunder. In paragraph 14 of the statement of the case, the Appellate Tr...
M. O. Thomakutty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Travancore-cochIn and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR501(Ker)
KUMARA PILLAI, J. - This is a reference made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in consequence of the order of this court in O.P. Nos. 228 and 229 of 1955. The reference related to the assessment of one M.O. Thomakutty, Trichur, for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52 (accounting periods being the Malabar Years 1124 and 1125). Original Petition No. 228 of 1955 was for requiring the Tribunal to state a case in respect of the assessment for 1951-52 and Original Petition No. 229 of 1955 was for requiring the Tribunal to state a case in respect of the assessment for 1950-51. The questions referred as a result of Original Petition No. 228, i.e., in respect of the assessment of 1951-52, are (1) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the disallowance of the expenditure s capital in nature was justified in law and (2) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in making presumptio...
Edapally Valia Raja Vs. Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker83
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of proceedings to execute the decree in O. S. No 352 of 1113 on the file of the Muvattupuzha Munsiff's Court. The decree-holder is the appellant before us and his execution application, dated 10-6-1954 has concurrently been dismissed by the two lower courts namely, the Court of the Munsiff at Muvattupuzha and the Court of the Sub Judge at Parur.Following the decision of Sankaran, J. (sitting alone) reported in Kuriakko v. Kurian Pylee, 1953 Ker LT 20 : (AIR 1953 Trav-Co. 394), the primary court held the application to be hit by the twelve years' rule enacted in Section 48, Civil Procedure Code.The learned Munsiff was bound by the authority cited before him and so was the learned Subordinate Judge. Before the court of the latter the decree-holder tried to get over the difficulty by contending for the position that the execution application in question was only one to continue an earlier application filed within twelve years from the date ...
The Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Alleppy Vs. Karuppaiya Nadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker217; 1959CriLJ840
K.T. Koshi, C.J. 1. This is an appeal filed with the sanction of this Court under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alleppey made in C, C. 104/1937 on his tile. In that case the Food Inspector of Alleppey Municipal Council preferred a complaint against the accused, the respondent herein, under Sections 27(i) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act 37 of 1954). The facts alleged in the complaint were that the accused, a dealer in black-gram flour and groundnuts was found to have stored and exposed for sale in his shop at Puthenangadi, Alleppey, about 48 maunds of some article purporting to be black-gram flour and that on suspicion the complainant purchased for sample 1 1/2 Lbs, from one among the 6 bags found there and that on chemical analysis by the public Analyst the sample purchased was found to contain 95.9 per cent Calcium Carbonate and 3.6 per cent sand with no black-gram f...
Eapen Mathai Vs. Abdul Kadir Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker399
Kumara Pillai, J.1. Two questions arise for decision in this second appeal, namely, whether the suit, out of which it arises, is barred by res judicata on account of the decision, Ext. I, and whether it is barred by limitation. On the first question, namely, the question of res judicata, the findings of the lower courts are concurrent: and on the second they are divergent. The lower appellate court found that there was no bar of limitation. But, in spite of that finding, it had to confirm the decision of the trial court dismissing the suit as it concurred with the trial court's finding that Ext. I operated as res judicata.2. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 1,500/-due under a hypothecation bond, Ext. A, Rs. 1.000 being the principal and Rs. 500/- arrears of interest. Plaintiff was a subssriber in a chitty, and on prizing his ticket he drew the prize amount executing a chitty hypothecation bond in favour of the foreman jointly with defendant 1. The properties hypothecated under the chit...
Lakshmana Vasudeva Co. Vs. Gopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker376
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. The respondent was adjudged insolvent by the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry in I. P. 1/1949. He applied for discharge under Section 41 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioner who was the principal creditor opposed the grant of an order of absolute discharge on two grounds viz., (i) that the respondent was guilty of fraud and (ii) that if at all only a conditional discharge should have been granted as the respondent was entitled to a share in Tavazhi properties. These objections were overruled by the Court of first instance and an order of absolute discharge was given. This was confirmed in appeal and the petitioner has come up in revision challenging the correctness of the concurrent orders.2. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was guilty of fraudulent conduct inasmuch as he executed a release of his share in Tavazhi properties to his sister before applying for adjudication. The Tavazhi was undivided a...
Parameswearn Nair Vs. Aiyappan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker206
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This appeal is by the 6th defendant-respondent in S. A. 729 of 1953 on the file of this court.2. The matter arises out of an objection filed by the appellant 6th defendant under Section 47, C. P. C., against the delivery in execution, of Items 1 to 4, to the respondent additional 3rd plaintiff. These items had been obtained assignment of by the 3rd plaintiff from the 2nd plaintiff original decree-holder-auction-purchaser. It was the case of the 6th defendant that he alone had advanced the purchase money in respect of the assignment and the 3rd plaintiff who had married his daughter since deceased, was a mere benamidar for him in die matter.The 3rd plaintiff denied that he was a benamidar and further objected to the maintainability of the objection on various grounds. The executing 'court as well as the District Court in appeal by the 3rd plaintiff found concurrently in favour of the 6th dafendant on both aspects of benami and maintainability and refused delive...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »