Kerala Court January 1960 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.
Abraham Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker236
ORDERAnna Chandy, J. 1. This Revision Petition is tiled by the accused in C. C. No. 929 of 1959 of the Sub-Magistrate's Court. Kottayam. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504, I. P. C., and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- under each count. The conviction under Sections 447 was quashed in the appeal by the District Magistrate and the conviction under Sections 504, upheld, 2. The accused is a jeweller at Thirunakkara, Kottayam and the complainant, the Resident Engineer of the Kottayam Electricity Agency. The current charges due from the accused to the Electric Co. amounted to more than Rs. 1000/- on 16-11-1957. The amount was not paid in spite of repeated demands. The complainant therefore took steps to stop the supply of current. He sent has men to the accused's shop to remove the fuse placed inside the building. The men had to return due to the accused's resistance. On 16-11-1957 at about 10-30 A. M. they cut the aerial f...
C.A. Abdul Wahab Vs. S. Krishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker304; 1960CriLJ1331; (1960)IILLJ410Ker
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. This Revision Petitioner Abdul Wa-hab, Proprietor of C. A. Abdul Wahab and Co., Mattanchery, was convicted by the District Magistrate, Ernakulam under Section 92 of the Factories Act 63 of 1948 for contravening the following provisions of the said Act and the Travancore-Cochin Factories Rules 1952 : (i) Section 6(1)(a) of the Act and Rule 3 by conducting the factory without the previous sanction of the Chief Inspector of Factories, (ii) Section 6 (1) (d) of the Act and Rule 4 by not applying for registration and obtaining a licence for the Factory and (iii) Section 7 (1) and Rule 12 by not giving due notice to the Chief Inspector of Factories.2. The prosecution case is that on 15-5-1957 when Pw. 3 the Inspector of Factories visited the premises of Abdul Wahab and Co., he found 29 persons engaged in the manufacturing process (preparing coir products for export). It is therefore alleged that Abdul Wahab and Co., is a factory as defined under the Factories Act and t...
Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Factory Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC367(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The petitioners in this Tax Revision Case are a firm with their head office at Quilon, in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State and with a depot at Perinthalmanna in the Malabar area. For the assessment year 1953-54 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Perinthalmanna, inspected their accounts and found that they had purchased in that year cashew-nuts worth Rs. 13,11,206-6-0 through their agent, C.V. Francis. The assessees represented to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer that the goods were given delivery to them at Trichur, in the Travancore-Cochin area by their agent and that they had already been asesssed to sales tax on this amount by the Sales Tax Authorities of the Travancore-Cochin State. They also produced a copy of the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Quilon. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was of opinion that the turnover was assessable to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and issued notice to the petitioners proposing to a...
A. Velayudhan Nadar Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC373(Ker)
1. The petitioner is a dealer in sugar. By Section 5-A (1-A) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, the sale by a dealer of sugar and certain other specified commodities 'other than stock of such goods in his possession, custody or control immediately before the 14th day of December, 1957' were exempted from taxation under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act.2. Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A provides :Subject to such rules, if any, as may be made by the Government in this behalf, the Government or any officer authorised by the Government may compound for a consolidated payment the tax that would be payable on the sale of the goods mentioned in Sub-section (1) in the possession, control or custody of any dealer immediately before the 14th day of December, 1957. In fixing the amount of consolidated payment to be accepted from any dealer under this Sub-section, the amount, if any, payable as surcharge on the tax payable on the sale of such goods under Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on...
Prabhakaran Nair and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker314; 1960CriLJ1333
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. This revision is by the five accused in C. C. No. 561 of 1957 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Alwaye. They were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. They appealed to the District Magistrate, Ernakulam and the appeal was admitted and numbered. On 12-12-1958 when the appeal came up for hearing the appellant's counsel applied for leave on the ground of some personal inconvenience. That application was disallowed and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by the short order 'I heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor who is appearing for the respondent and also perused the records. I am of the view that the lower Court's conviction and sentence have to be confirmed. The appeal is dismissed'.2. It is urged that the disposal of the case in this summary fashion is not proper and it is prayed that the appeal may be directed to be heard and dispose...
Workmen of Sasi Industrials Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ396Ker
ORDERM.A. Ansari, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is against the industrial award of 18 December 1957.2. The Government had, in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred to the industrial tribunal, Alleppey, the following questions :(i) Is the non-engagement of worker M. Janaradhana Pai justifiable?(ii) To what relief is he entitled-(a) If the non-engagement is not justifiable; and(b) if the non-engagement is found justifiable?(iii) Is there any arrears of wages due to be paid to him; if so, what is the amount?(iv) Should there be any bonus to be paid to him for the period from 1129 onwards? If so, what is the amount?The aforesaid employee is said to have been engaged by the Sasi Industrials, Shertallai, who is respondent 2 to this petition; was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 150; and to have been without any justification dismissed on 9 June 1956. We need not give further details of the several claims put in by t...
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Raju ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC169(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, J.1. The decision, on the questions raised in the petition, would be unnecessary; because the view, that works contracts can be included in the definition of sale for purposes of sales tax, has been finally held as incorrect by the Supreme Court in The State, of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 560. Therefore the decision of the Tribunal is correct that the taxing authorities cannot levy any tax in exercise of the authority to, charge such agreements as sales. The petition questions the jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal to hold ultra vires parts of the statute, under which it has been set up; but any decision on the two questions framed for the purpose would not result in the petition being allowed and they can be decided in an appropriate case. The assessee before us being under no liability because of the aforesaid pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the revision petition is dismissed, but without costs....
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Malay ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC376(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, J.1. This batch of seven revision petitions arises in the four assessment years for 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. Three of the aforesaid petitions are by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Trivandrum and the remaining four are by a registered dealer. The former set of petitions seeks to vary that part of the order by the Appellate Tribunal, wherein the tax on inter-State sales of tea in the aforesaid assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 has been held not to be legal; whereas the dealer petitioner seeks reversal of the remaining parts of the order that has upheld tax on other sales of tea in the four assessment years. In all the cases the dealer is Messrs Malayalam Plantations Ltd. and for the assessment year 1951-52 has been charged Rs. 13,155-3-1 as the tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The amount has been levied on Rs. 25,367-4-0, which is the price of Wynad teas stored in and sold at Fort Cochin to T. Campbell & Co., Ltd., with a view to e...
S. Neelakanta Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker279; (1960)IILLJ398Ker; (1960)IILLJ398Ker
ORDERS.Velu Pillai, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-6, an order dated 24-1-1959, passed by the respondent, the Government of the State of Kerala removing him from service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. A petition of complaint against him for alleged misconduct, was presented to the then Minister for Law by one Radhamma, upon which, pending enquiry, he was suspended from service on 17-2-1958. Preliminary enquiries having been made thereon, Government ordered, by notification dated 7-3-1958. 'a detailed departmental enquiry under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957', which may be referred to hereafter as the Kerala Rules, to be held on the complaint for 'indecent behaviour and misconduct' on his part, and committed the enquiry to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who may he referred to hereafter as the Commissioner. Upon the complaint, the Commissioner framed a char...
N.K. Dharmaraja Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker287; [1960]11STC170(Ker)
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner was asssessed to sales-tax, for the year 1953-54 by the sales-tax Officer, IInd Circle, Trichur, erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State by order Ext. P-l. dated 27-1-1956, on a total net turnover of Rs. 89,443-11-3 on no return submitted by him, but on an examination of his books of account, repelling his contention, that turnover to the extent of Rs. 65.908-0-6 was on account of inter-state sales. He submitted a return of turnover on account of inter-state sales for a Period which covered also the year 1953-1954 to the second respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Special Circle, Madras, and although he had pleaded before him, that he had been taxed by the former Travancore-Cochin State on the same turnover, he was assessed to sales-tax, by order Ext. P-2 dated November 15, 1956.Not being able to realise the tax, the second respondent requested the third respondent, the District Collector, Trichur, to initiate proceedings against the petiti...