Kerala Court January 1960 Judgments
Velayudhan Narayanan and ors. Vs. Krishnan Sankaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker298
Joseph, J.1. These appeals arise from the decree in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and purakkadom executed by deceased Kochukunju Raman in favour of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs' case is that Kochukunju Raman was the karnavan of the Sakha to which they and defendants 9 and 10 belong, that the property was acquired in his name with the aid of funds provided by his father and that they are entitled to redeem the property on behalf of their, sakha. The mortgage right vested in defendants 4 to 6 and 8 on the date of suit. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as damages for allowing part of the property, a paddy field, to get silted and mesne profits at the rate of 350 paras of paddy per annum.The fourth defendant, a son of Kochukunju Raman, denied the plaintiffs title to redeem the property. According to him the property was the self-acquisition of Kochukunju Raman and the same devolved on his children. The claim for damages was denied. It was also contended th...
Tag this Judgment!Parambathkandy Abu Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC267(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, provides that subject to the provisions of that Act every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year. It also provides that the tax shall be calculated 'at the rates specified in column (3) of Schedule I for every rupee in the turnover relating to the goods noted against them in column (2) thereof and at the rate of two naye paise for every rupee in the turnover relating to all other goods.'2. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 provides that for the purposes of that section and the other provisions of the Act, turnover shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 the buyer or the seller but not both, as determined by such rules as may be prescribed, shall be taxed in respect of the same transaction of sale and where a dealer has been taxed in respect of the purchase of any goods in accordance with the rules prescribed, h...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR478(Ker)
ANSARI, J. - The assessee company, that has since gone into liquidation, was incorporated in 1937 with the object, inter alia, of acquiring and working the rights title and interest in the match factory of on A. V. Thomas at Mudical. The memorandum of association had further empowered the company to manufacture and deal in acids, alkalis and other chemicals. The business of manufacturing matches was carried till the account year ending 30 April, 1941 thereafter the profits from the business began to fall off on account of war conditions, and the company began to manufacture plywood chests for tea as contemplated by clause 3 of the objects. The company started manufacturing paints in the account year ending 30 April, 1942, and undertook the manufacture of lemon-glass oil in the next account year. The manufacture of matches having become unprofitable the company on 9 May, 1943, entered into an agreement with one Rao Sahib Natesa Iyer for the sale of the lands, buildings, plant and machin...
Tag this Judgment!Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Referring Auth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker309
1. The Chartered Accountant in this reference that has been made under the Chartered Accountants Act, 38 of 1949. is Sreenivasa Iyer. He had audited the balance sheet of the United Bank of Travancore Ltd., for 1949, 1950 and 1951. The Act governing the Bank's annual statement for the first year was the Travancore Companies Act, 9 of 1114, and the balance sheet for the two succeeding years were prepared according to the Indian Banking Companies Act, No. 10 of 1949, that had become then operative in the then Travancore-Cochin State. Also the Chartered Accountants Act was extended in 1951 to part B States.2. The circumstances leading to the reference can be shortly stated. In the audited balance sheets for the years 1949 and 1950 the share capital of the company appear as under:--31st December 1949.31st December 1950.No. of shares.AmountNo. of Shares.Amount2,00,00020,00.000Authorised30,0003,00.0001,60,00015,00,000Issued30,0003,00.00093,5999,35,990Subscribed17,4031,74,03088,2895,29,734Call...
Tag this Judgment!Kohinoor Saw Mill Company, Ltd. Vs. Tahsildar, Cannanore Taluk and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ620Ker
Velu Pillai, J.1. This petition is to quash a notice of demand made by the tahsildar of Cannanore, in pursuance of a certificate issued by the District Labour Officer under Section 330 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which may be referred to as the Act. The point taken on behalf of the petitioner was, that there had not been a prior decision under Section 25A(2) of the Act, that the industrial establishment concerned is of a seasonal character or Is one where work is performed only intermittently. This question having been raised, the need for an adjudication upon it was conceded by the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondents. Under Rule 75(a) of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the employer or the workman, or the representative of the employer or the workman, may submit to Government a petition praying for a decision by the Government on this question. It is for the petitioner or the concerned workman to take necessary action under Rule 75(a). No ...
Tag this Judgment!Musaliar Industries (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ341Ker
M.A. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner seeks certiorari to vacate the award by the industrial tribunal, Trivandrum, in I.D. No. 212 of 1955. Thereby the petitioner's management has been directed to reinstate one Hussankutty with back-wages, which must include the salary and allowances Hussankutty was getting from the date they were stopped till the date of his reinstatement. Prior to the dispute this Hussankutty was a clerk in the Eruva Cashew Factory of A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar & Sons (Private), Ltd., hereinafter referred to as A.T.K.M. & Sons, Ltd. That company was then engaged in caehewnut business, and was working 26 cashew factories. It is alleged that the number of labourers employed in all the factories came to about 17,000. One Thangal Kunju Musaliar was the managing director of A.T.K.M. & Sons, Ltd., and Mrs. Nafeesa and Mrs. Aiysha Beebi, the other directors. On 27 July 1955, Hussankutty, who had been employed for nearly seven years, was called by the managing director, and was to...
Tag this Judgment!ShamsuddIn Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker361; [1960(1)FLR528]; (1960)ILLJ623Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, the employer, is a sub-agent of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company in Quilon, and he terminated the employment o three workmen on October 3, 1956. On October 19, 1956, they enrolled themselves as members of a labour Union called 'The Quilon Commercial Staff Association', hereafter referred to as the Union, which took up their cause and raised a dispute which was referred by the first respondent, the Government, of the State of Kerala, to the second respondent, the Industsial Tribunal, to be referred to as the Tribunal, as 'the Industrial Dispute between the management of Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Sub-Agency, Quilon, represented by tile Sub-Agent, and the workmen of the above concern represented by the Quilon Commercial Staff Association'. The reference concerned two issues, the first of which related to the termination o the employment of the three workmen and the second, to their claim for bonus, for the years 1953 to 1956. At an early stage of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Vs. P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC212(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision petition seeks to vary the order by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the dealer's appeal has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 67,774-11-1 has been held not liable to sales tax. The ground, on which the Tribunal has given the relief, is that the aforesaid amount represents the price of goods got through inter State sales and could not be charged because the prohibition under Article 286(2) had not been lifted. The Tribunal has further held that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, does not save the tax, as there were no provisions in the Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act authorising levy of tax on such inter-State sales. In this connection the Tribunal relies on the decision by the Travancore High Court in Cochin Coal Company's case [1956] 7 S.T.C. 731. Since then the Supreme Court has in Sundararamier and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1958] 9 S.T.C. 298 held that Section 2(h) read with Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act authorised levy...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathy Amma Vs. Lakshmikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker313
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. This petition arises out of an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act filed by defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Defendants 1 to 11 were members of an undivided family which possessed only a homestead. Defendants 3 to 11, transferred their undivided shares in the homestead to the plaintiff, a stranger to the family. Afterwards the plaintiff brought the suit for partition and a preliminary decree was passed for partition and separate possession of 9 out of 11 shares to the plaintiff and the balance 2 shares to defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed an application, for passing a final decree, when defendants 1 and 2 filed the application, M. P. No. 2969 of 1956, under Section 4 of the Partition Act offering to buy the share of the plaintiff at a price fixed by the Court, This was filed on 16-10-1956. Afterwards on 31-1-1957 the 8th defendant in the suit got a transfer of the rights of the plaintiff and subsequently got herself transposed as an additional...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Jolsian Vs. Bhaskaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker234; 1960CriLJ908
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Additional District Judge of Trivandrum in O. P. 1/58 which was a petition filed by the appellantunder Sections 18 and 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Act XXV of 1955. The appellant's case was that he is the guardian of his daughter who is agedonly 17. It was stated that the respondent was giving tuition to his daughter and that on 16-11-59 while the appellant's daughter was going to the school, the respondent took her to his house and married her in the presence of various persons. The appellant therefore prayed that the respondent may be punished under Clause (c) of Section 18 of the Act. 2. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable and has to be dismissed in limine. At the request of the parties this preliminary point was heard by the learned District Judge who held that the petition is not maintainable and dismissed the petition. The appeal is against this order. 3. Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »