Kerala Court September 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.
Food Inspector, Kozhikode Vs. Punsi Desai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker190; 1959CriLJ712
Raman Nayar, J. 1. On a complaint made by the Municipal Health Officer, Kozhikode, who in his capacity as a Food Inspector appointed under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (Central Act 37 of 1954) has been authorised tinder Section 20(1) thereof to institute prosecutions, the accused, a wholesale merchant of Kozhikode, dealing in pepper among other merchandise, was tried by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, the accusation against him being that he stored for sale 62 bags of pepper which was both adulterated and misbranded within the definitions in Section 2(i)(1) and (ix)(d) of the Act, He was acquitted by the learned Magistrate on the ground that it had not been proved that the pepper in question was stored for sale, and the complainant has brought this appeal against the acquittal by special leave under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. (From the com...
Chacko Vs. Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker149
Vahadahaja Iyengar, J 1. This revision raises the question as to whether the provision in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Indian Arbitration Act X of 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) is mandatory or merely directory, in character. In view to its importance it was referred by one of us before whom it came on in the first instance to a Division Bench. 2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent by agreement dated 19-5-1954, referred their differences in the matter of the settlement of their partnership accounts, to two arbitrators viz., respondents 2 and 3. The arbitration agreement did not, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act exclude the applicability of the First Schedule to the Act, paragraph 2 of which provided : '(2) If the reference is to an even number of arbitrators, the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire not later than one month from the latest date of their respective appointments'. However, respondents 2 and 3 did not appoint an umpire whether before they commen...
Official Liquidator Vs. Krishna Kamath and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker388
ORDERRaman Nayar, J.1. So far as counter petitioners 13, 14 and 15 are concerned the Liquidator's report discloses a prima facie case of fraud by each one of them. Counter Petitioner 13 was first the General Manager and then the Secretary of the Banking Company in liquidation; and counter petitioners 14 and 15 were agents of the Alleppey office of the company at the time of the alleged fraud. They are all officers of the company and are in the circumstances liable to public examination under Section 478 of the Companies Act.2. Counter Petitioner 16, so far as the report says, was only the Cashier of the Alleppey office. If that be so he is not an officer of the Company, nor is he a promoter, director or auditor of the company. He is not therefore liable to public examination either under Section 478 of the Companies Actor under Section 45G of the Banking Companies Act.3. Of the remaining counter petitioners, counter petitioners 1 to 8 were directors of the company; and counter petition...
M. Appukutty Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker16; [1958]9STC710(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikoda II, assessed the petitioner to sale-tax on a net turnover of Rs. 12,56,178-14-0 for 1952-53 by his order dated 27-3-1954 (Ext. A). The assessee appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer, Malabar (South). The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 24-5-1954 (Ex. B.). 2. By an order dated 31-3-1956 the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, ordered as follows:'In exercise of the powers vested in me under the M. G. S. T. Act and Rules, I revise the order of the C. T. O. Malabar (South) dated 24-5-1954 and redetermine the net turnover at Rs. 14,99,561-4-0 as detailed below and order the levy of tax thereon for 1952-53. 1.Turnoverfixed by the D. C. T. O. and confirmed by the C. T. O., MalabarSouth...Rs. 12,55,178--14--02.Sugar imports in othernames (Sales turnover estimated)Rs. 1,67,952--7--93.Malda and sugarImported (Sales turnover estimated)Rs. 46,610--0--04.Purchase through N. C Shenoy, Kozhikode, (Rs. 2364...
State Vs. K. Kesavan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker161; 1959CriLJ594
Sankaran, J.1. This appeal arises out of an unsuccessful prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939). On 14-3-1957, Pw. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Police at Neeleswar, checked the lorry, M. D. G, 3655, at the fourth mile stone on the Neeleswaram-Parappa road. It was then found that the first accused, who was driving the lorry, was not in possession of a permit authorising the lorry to be taken along the road. It is stated that in spite of the notice, Ext. P1 served on him by Pw. 1 calling upon him to produce the permit within 10 days, he failed to do so. The allegation against the 2nd accused is that he allowed the first accused to ply the lorry along the Neeleswaram-Parappa road without a permit.On these allegations, both the accused were prosecuted for the offence under Section 123(1) read with Section 42(1), Motor Vehicles Act. The case against them was tried as Calendar Case No. 267/1957 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate's Court at Hosdrug. The accused pleaded not guilty...
P.K. Sathianesan Vs. Sankaran Nadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker154
Koshi, C.J.1. The appeal is against an order admitting the Review of an order dismissing an execution application for want of prosecution. We are unable to find any justification for admitting the review. The learned Judge would appear to have done it on more compassionate grounds. The order proceeds to state that the decree-holder was negligent, but finds support for admitting the review on the basis that no notice was given to the decree-holder that his application was proposed to be dismissed. We are not aware of any provision of law enjoining the court to issue such a notice as a condition precedent to the dismissal of an execution petition for want of prosecution. The decree-holder was represented in court and his counsel was present in court when the application was dismissed. On the merits therefore the order cannot therefore be supported.2. Mr. Nilakanta Iyer appearing for the decree-holder respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent. Order 47, Rule...
Kochu Muhmmad Kunju Ismail Vs. Mohmmad Kadeja Umma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker151; 1959CriLJ591
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the complainant in a private prosecution for offences under Section 494 and Section 114 I.P.C. and is directed against the judgment of acquittal entered by the court below.2. The complainant had married the 1st accused in Mithunam 1116. They both came from the village of Thalayolaparamba in North Travancore and belonged to the Shia sect of Muslims. They lived together cordially till 22-9-1121 when the 1st accused left the complainant for her father the 2nd accused's house for good. According to her, she was driven out forcibly by the complainant after divorcing her by words of 'Talak' pronounced.She accordingly filed suit O. S. 428 of 1122 on the file of the Vaikom Munsiff's Court for recovery of Mahar and also certain movables. The court however found against the allegation of divorce by the complainant, but still gave judgment in favour of the 1st accused for the value of the movables: vide Ext. P-4 judgment dated 17-6-52. While that suit wa...
Cherian Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam, and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR210(Ker)
JOSEPH, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing certain orders passed in income-tax proceedings against an unregistered firm of which the partners were the petitioner and one P. J. George. They were conducting distillery business in the year 1124, the petitioner having a four annas share in the business. The first respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam, and the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala and Coimbatore. The petitioner was served with a letter exhibit P-1 dated October 27, 1955, by the first respondent together with a notice of demand to remit a sum of Rs. 9,851-11-0 alleged to be the tax due pursuant to and assessment in the name of P. J. George for the year 1950-51. On receipt of exhibit P-1 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellant Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam. He also applied to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, to stay the collection of the tax covered by the dema...
In Re: Popular Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker11
Raman Nayar, J. 1. The common question in theseproceedings is whether an affidavit filed by a debtorof an insolvent banking company under Rule 15 ofthe Travancore-Cochin Banking Company Rules,1955, in reply to a list filed by the liquidator underSection 45-D (2) of the Banking Companies Act 1949wherein he claims that money is due to him fromthe company and that an account should be taken,is a written statement pleading a set off within themeaning of item 1 of the schedule 1 to the Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act II of 1125 and liable tocourt-fee as such, I do not think it is, even if weassume that such an affidavit is a written statement.For, under Section 529 of the Companies Act 1956, read with Section 47 of the Kerala Insolvency Act, in the easelof mutual dealings an account has to he taken andonly the balance of the account can be claimed bythe one party or the other, as the case may be. Itis only this balance if it is in favour of the company,that the liquidator is entitled to cl...
Thommen Varkey Vs. Govindan Nair Madhavan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker155
Vaidialingam, J.1. The fourth defendant is the appellant, and the short point for consideration is as to the terms on which redemption of the suit mortgage is to be granted.2. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to get redemption on payment of the mortgage money alone; whereas according to the appellant, before getting redemption the plaintiff must pay not only the mortgage money but also the arrears of rent or mesne profits subsequent to 9-6-1110.3. Both the Courts have accepted the contention of the plaintiff though for slightly different reasons.4. There is no dispute about the actual facts. The suit properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and ultimately, part of the rights have devolved on the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father executed a usufructuary mortgage on 7-4-1092, evidenced by Ext. A, in favour of one Ouseph for Rs. 2,131. The period of redemption was fixed as 10 years in Ext. A. On the same day, the mortgagor took a lease of the properties for one year an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »