Kerala Court February 1959 Judgments
Kunhibi Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Kozhikode
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker80
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner and her sister, Pathummabi, owned an item of property, T. S. No. 92/6, Block 4, Ward 10, within the Calicut Municipality. The said item has been acquired by this State under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Pathummabi, it is alleged has relinquished her share of the compensation in favour of the petitioner and informed the respondont, the Land Acquisition Officer, Kozhikode, that the entire compensa-tion may be paid to the petitioner.2. The petitioner moved the respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; but he rejected the application on the ground that it was filed out of time. Many of the facts relevant to the consideration of the question of limitation are in dispute and it is impossible for me to evaluate the truth or otherwise of the statements made by the petitioner and denied by the respondent.3 According to the respondent the award wan made on 10-11-1956, notice thereof under Section 12(2) o...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramadasa Kamath Vs. M. Kalliani and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker183
N. Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. These six second appeals arise from six rent suits on the file of the District Munsiffs Court of Hosdrug and raise a common question of title depending upon the proper construction of a will. Following the procedure adopted by the courts below with regard to the suits and the first appeals, the appeals Herein were also heard together in this court. This single judgment is intended to dispose of them all. 2. The will in question is dated 17-12-1931) and was left by Vittappa the last of three Hindu brothers but who had been given away in adoption. He was about 75 at the date of the will. He had no male child but had six daughters, three by his caste wife and three by his concubine. His eldest brother Manjnnatha had a son Ganapathy, while his brother Upendra had died leaving a son Mukunda and three grand-sons by him, Ramadas, Narasimha and Achutha. By the will Vittappa divided his estate under three lists and bequeathed List I properties toGanapathy, List 2 pr...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Amma Vs. Rama Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker52
Vaidialingam, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant are the appellants in this Second Appeal.2. The suit is for recovery of the plaint schedule properties or in the alternative, for realisation of certain amounts charged on the plaint schedule properties.3. The short facts leading up to this litigation are as follows:4. The Jenmi of the properties is the Keevelloor Devaswam, Vellorkara and the plaintiff is the manager of the said Devaswora. On 20--4--1094, under Ext. E, he executed a kanom in favour of one Parameswara Panicker. The said Parameswara Panicker assigned his rights under Ext. C on 6-12- 1107 in favour of one Raman Nair. Raman Nair executed a mortgage on 6-12-1107 on the same date under Ext. F in favour of the original defendant., On 29-12-1109 under Ext. D Raman Nair reassigned his rights to Parameswara Panicker.5. The Devaswom instituted two suits, O. S. 1238/1110, District Munsiff's Court, Vaikom and O. S. 479/1116, District Munsiff's Court, Vaikom for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Pathrose Rice and Oil Mills, Ir ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker246; [1960]40ITR353(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922. The question referred is:'There being no other defects in the application, whether the firm is a valid partnership in law and accordingly registrable under Section 26A for all the aforesaid 4 years of assessment 1952-53 to 1955-56?'2. Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, reads as follows:'(1) Application may be made to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of any firm, constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners, for registration for the purposes of this Act and of any other enactment for the time being in force relating to income-tax or supertax. (2) The application shall be made by such person or persons, and at such times and shall contain such particulars and shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer i...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Yakob Vs. Jose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker309; 1959CriLJ1170
Raman Nayar, J. 1. This petition is for setting aside the acquittal of the 14 respondents under Section 494(h) of the Criminal P. C. consequent on the Public Prosecutor withdrawing from the prosecution with leave of the Court. The petitioner is the first informant in the case and one of the two victims of the alleged offences.2. The charge sheet in the case was laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Irinjalakuda, on 8-4-57 and it charged the 14 accused persons (the present respondents) with offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It alleged that the 14 accused persons had, of set purpose, gathered in a body near the petitioner's shop at about 8 P.M. on 13-3-1957 and, after shouting threats, trespassed into the shop and dragged out and beaten and fisted the petitioner and his brother, causing injuries to both and breaking a rib of the latter. It further alleged that the accused did this because the petitioner and his brother ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanitary Inspector, Quilon Municipality Vs. Vararaju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker81; 1960CriLJ348
Velu Pillai, J.1. On a complaint preferred by the Sanitary Ins-pector, Quilon Municipality, against the respondent, for an offence punishable under Section 147, Sub- section 1(C) read with Section 42 of the Travancore Public Health Act 1121, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the respondent's failure to comply with the directions lawfully given to him for abating a nuisance, the Additional Second Class Magistrate, Quilon, after deciding the relevant questions of fact in favour of the complainant, pronounced judgment dismissing the complaint, and acquitting the respondent, on the ground that the complaint was not supported by an express authorisation as prescribed by Section 152 of the Act. The State, represented by the complainant, has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.2. The only point for decision in the appeal is, whether the complainant had the requisite authority under Section 152 of the Act. Notice was issued to the respondent under Section 42 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker85
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The complaint is that the petitioner, bus operator was not heard before orders were passed by the 1st respondent. Transport Authority and their Secretary the 2nd respondent on an application for variation of route made by the 3rd respondent rival bus operator in the first instance and for consequential variation of timings later on jointly made by the 3rd and 4th respondents. It was objected on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents that the petitioner filed his representation beyond the time prescribed and so he was not actually heard on his representation. Petitioner in reply states that the time prescribed and which he overstepped was unauthorised by law, but he was nevertheless in time and so should have been heard in any event. There were various other points raised by the petitioner in his petition and argued before me but as I am with him on the question as to wrongful non-hearing. I do not de...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker92
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. The question is raised in both these petitions whether tax paid by a company which is a foreign company can be added on to the dividend paid by the company to a share-holder-assesses incomputing his total income and whether such question can EC raised in this course and for purpose of rectification proceedings under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act. 1922.2. The common petitioner in these petitions was first assessed for 2 different years on the basisof his net dividends as derived from a Ceylon company. He was subsequently proceeded against under Section 35 for revised assessment on basis of the gross dividends. Hence these O. Ps. challenging the respective orders. And the point is raised that Section 16 (2) of the Income-tax Act which provides for the grossing up as regards dividends does not apply to amounts paid by a foreign company towards income-tax to a foreign State and there was no provision in the Act either which allows the amount of such tax bei...
Tag this Judgment!Subhodaya Corporation Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC356(Ker)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byN. Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the petitioners in 0.P. 78 of 1956 of the Trivandrum Bench of this Court and is directed against the order of our learned brother T. K. Joseph, J., dismissing it.2. The appellants are Messrs Subhodaya Corporation, Building Contractors at Trivandrum. Their business consisted of shell-creting public roads under Government and local bodies and on the basis of composite rates which covered both materials and labour which went into the making of the road. They were assessed to sales tax in respect of those 'works contracts' for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 by the Sales Tax Officer, I Circle, Trivandrum, fixing their net turnover on figures supplied by the petitioners themselves at particular amount. Subsequently they filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax claiming exemption for the entire turnover but without success. They then took the matter in revision be...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker351; 1959CriLJ1323
Joseph, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment of the District Magistrate, Palghat acquitting the Respondent of an offence under Sections 16(1) and 7 read with Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. 37 of 1954). The Respondent was a vendor of non-alcoholic beverages and the Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality preferred a complaint against him stating that he was selling 'orange crush' adulterated with artificial sweetener, an offence punishable under the Act. The accused contended that he prepared the drink from orange oil sold by a reputed manufacturer, Parry and Co. Ltd. and that he had not committed any offence. The learned District Magistrate found that the drink was adulterated inasmuch as it contained 'dulcin', an artificial sweetener but that a conviction could not be entered, as the Food Inspector had not complied with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act which requires that where the Food Inspector takes action in such matters, he s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »