Kerala Court July 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.
N.V. Thomas and anr. Vs. Kerala State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC238(Ker)
T.K. Josseph, J.1. The petitioners who had defaulted payment of a sum of Rs. 2,302-1-6 due from them as sales tax were prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alleppey, under Sections 13 and 19(b) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act (XI of 1125). They were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. They were. also directed by the judgment to pay the arrears of tax and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of three months. This criminal revision petition is directed against the latter part of the sentence.2. The point urged in revision is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct payment of the arrears and to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of such payment. Section 19 reads as follows:Offences and penalties. -- Any person who,(a) wilfully submits an untrue return or fails to submit a return as required by the provisions of this Act or the rules ...
C.K. Achuthan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker239
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. 201/58 against the order of Mr. Justice Raman 'Nayar dismissing the said O. P.2. Our learned brother has dismissed the application on the ground that the orders complained of by the petitioner are not amenable to correction in exercise of the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution and dismissed the application for the issue of a writ.3. After hearing Mr. Manuel T. Paikeday, learned counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader and Mr. P. Govinda Menon, Counsel for the respondents, we are of opinion that the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Justice Raman Nayar are correct and this appeal has to be dismissed.4. The short facts leading up to the filing of the application in this court are as follows:5. On 9-11-1957, the State of Kerala called for tenders for the supply of diet and other hospital requirements for the year 1958-59 for the Head-quarters Hospital at Cannanore. The appellant appears to have made a tender...
Food Inspector, Trivandrum Vs. S. Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker371; 1959CriLJ1330
ORDERRaman Nayar, J.1. The accusation in this case was of a second offence for which Section 16 (1) (i) of the Act creating the offence, namely, Central Act XXXVII of 1954 provides for the enhanced penalty of imprisonment which may extend to two years. The case was, therefore, a warrant case. Particulars of the first offence were furnished in the complaint and, therefore, the learned Magistrate should have tried the case under the provisions of Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the proper stage for charging the accused with the previous conviction and of recording evidence, if necessary, in respect of that charge, would have been the stage mentioned in Section 255-A.The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate of trying the case under Chapter XX of the Code, convicting the accused on his own admission of guilt, and ignoring the prior conviction on the ground that no evidence of that conviction was adduced before him whereas, in reality he gave the prosecution no opport...
K.P. Ambady and ors. Vs. K.M. Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker27
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. The matter arises in execution of the decree, in connection with the enforcement against the revision petitioners, of a security bond executed by them.2. The suit was one for money. Pending suit the plaintiff-respondent applied for and obtained attachment before judgment of certain movables belonging to the defendant --2nd petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the movables were handed over to the defendant himself for safe custody under security bond dated 28-1-1956, executed by him and two others, of whom the 1st petitioner was one. The suit was decreed on 7-2-1957. Subsequently, on notice issued to produce the articles for purposes of sale in execution, the 1st defendant defaulted. The plaintiff then moved for enforcement of the security bond as against the petitioners by issue of warrant of arrest. The petitioners pleaded non-liability on various grounds out the plea was rejected, Hence this revision.3. We are concerned with only two of the objections rai...
Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker406
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This revision is by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 against an order of the court below refusing to restore their plaint which had been rejected for default of payment of deficit court-fees.2. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 were junior members in a Nair sub-tarwad consisting of themselves and defendants 1 to 3. They laid this suit on 29th March 1125 in forma pauperis (i) for declaration that a deed of partition of 1107 and executed during their minority by the adult members was not binding on the sub-tarwad, (ii) for setting aside various alienations executed by the adult members in favour of defendants 4 to 10 on the strength of the partition deed, and (iii) to recover the properties on behalf of the sub-tarwad with mesne profits. During the course of the suit, the plaintiffs were able to compromise with most of the alienees, hut this brought on a petition by the 4th defendant dated 9-10-1953 to dispauper them.The plainiffs agreed to pay the court-fees but by 23-11-1953 the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›