Kerala Court November 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.
A. Srinivasa Pai Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker236; [1961]12STC80(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. These are petitions under Section 15-B of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. They seek a revision of the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum in Appeals Nos. 40 of 1957 and 13 of 1958. T. R. C. No. 7 of 1958 relates to Appeal No. 40 of 1957 and T. R. C. No. 19 of (1958 to Appeal No. 13 of 1958. The petitions were heard together and a common judgment will suffice.2. The question for determination in both the cases is whether when bags of rice are sold the gunny bags concerned attract sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The Tribunal has held that the tax is attracted and it is the correctness of that decision that is challenged before us.3. It is not disputed that the rice itself does not attract any tax under the Act. , Section 5(vi) of die Act specifically provides that the sale of foodgrains shall be exempt from taxation.4. The petitioners had not charged separately For the gunny bags when the bags of rice were sold. There is nothing, howe...
C. Achutha Menon Vs. Election Tribunal, Trichur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker186
Ansari, C.J.1. This appeal is against the order by a learned Judge, refusing to admit a petition under Article 228. The appellant had thereby prayed that the order by the Election Tribunal, Trichur, directing scrutiny and recounting of votes, cast at the election of a member to the Legislative Assembly from Irinjalatuda in February 1960 be set aside. The order has been passed) on September 19; 1960, and in proceedings arising from an election petition against the appellant's election from the aforesaid Constituency.The appellant has been declared elected, because the number of votes in his favour had been found to be 29,069 and the number in favour of the respondent to be 28,708. Therefore, the majority in appellant's favour in 361 votes, 567 having been discarded by the Returning Officer as not valid, The respondent has filed an election petition seeking not only to invalidate the appellant's election under Section 100, but to get himself declared as duly elected, under Section 101, o...
Antony Vs. Mathew and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker48
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is an application for probate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The testator died on 11-4-1953 leaving behind four testamentary instruments; a will dated 28-1-1952 (P.5), two codicils, one dated 26-2-1953 (P.2) and another dated 28-2-1953 (P.3), and a will dated 26-3-1953 (P.4). '26-2-1952' mentioned in one portion of Ext. P.2 is a mistake for '26-2-1953.'2. The prior proceedings taken by the petitioner and the 6th respondent are narrated in detail in the petition before us. Those details, however, are of no consequence for a decision of the case and are hence not repeated in this judgment. We need only say that some of the aspects which fall to he considered came up For discussion in Thresia v Lonan Mathew, 1956 Ker L T 469 : ;(S) AIR 1956 Trav-Co 188) (FB).3. The four testamentary instruments have been duly proved. The witnesses examined in that connection are Pws. 1 to 6. There is no opposition to the grant of a probate as prayed for in the petition.4. If ...
Bhargavan Vs. Abdul Majeed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker183
Ansari, C.J.1. The writ petitioner is the elected member of the Kerala Legislature from the Chadayamangalam Constituency) Kottarakkara Taluk, Quilon District; and seeks to vacate the order whereby the Election Tribunal Quilon has rejected his objection to a witness being examined in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The election was held on February 1, 1960, and the writ petitioner then succeeded in defeating Abdul Majeed the first respondent to this petition.The unsuccessful candidate has subsequently filed an election petition seeking to set aside the petitioner's election and his being declared duly elected, under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition had been published in the Kerala Gazette of April 26, 1960, and the Election Tribunal, Quilon, the 2nd respondent to this writ petition, had been directed to adjudicate according to law.One of the grounds taken in the afore-said election petition is that persons below twenty-one had voted for the wr...
Mariyam Vs. Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ233
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the 1st Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha refusing to-order maintenance to the minor daughter of the 2nd petitioner aged 4 years who is living with the petitioner. The contention of the counter-petitioner-husband is that he is prepared to maintain the child if the child is given to him and that since he has not neglected to maintain the child' he is not bound to pay any maintenance allowance. This position is not tenable.A child does not stay away by its own choice and cannot be deprived of the right of maintenance simply because the child is in custody of the mother. The father cannot in a petition under Section 488 Crl. P.C. insist that the child should be given in his custody as a condition precedent for maintaining the child.2. This position is well-settled. In Ebrahim Mohamed v. Khurshedbai AIR 1941 Bora 267,. Beaumont, C.J., stated:The object of the section, no doubt, is to avoid vagrancy by providing that the Magis...
Haji P.K. Mammoo Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC142(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The only question that has been argued before us in these two Tax Revision Cases is regarding the validity of Rule 17(3-A) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and of Rule 13(6) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules. The Department and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the rules were good and valid and the assessee has filed these revisions questioning the correctness of the order of the Tribunal.2. T.R.C. No. 92 of 1959 relates to the assessment year 1952-53. For that year the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode-II, determined the assessable turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 6,41,162 and the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode. Pending appeal the Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Rule 17(3-A) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules proposing to reopen the assessment on the ground that a turnover of Rs, 6,34,785 had escaped assessment. The assessee objected to this b...
Mariyam Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ97
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The only question that is argued in this revision petition is as to the legality of the order of the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, quashing the conviction of the petitioner and directing retrial from the stage at which the procedure adopted by the lower Court was held to be detective.2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 294(b), I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- by the Second Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. On appeal it was contended that the accused was prejudiced because he was not personally questioned under Section 342, Cri, P.C., but only the accused's counsel was questioned; and also that the accused was not given an opportunity to adduce defence evidence. The learned District Magistrate held that this has Caused prejudice to the accused and therefore the conviction and sentence were set aside and the Magistrate was directed to question the accused personally on the evidence and circumstances appearing against him and to permit him ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›