Kerala Court February 1960 Judgments
Abraham Vs. Asst. Sales Tax Officer, Alwaye
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker360; [1960]11STC291(Ker)
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. There can be no doubt that animals and birds in captivity (monkeys, minahs and parrots, in these cases) are moveable property, and they are therefore 'goods' as that word is defined in Section 2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Hence the sale of such things is liable to taxation under that Act. The argument that animate things wilt not come within the definition of 'goods'' in Article 366(12) of the Constitution does not carry the petitioners far even if it is well-founded. Assuming it to be well founded, the sale of such things will not fall within entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule or entry 92A of List I. It would therefore fall within entry 97 of List I and to provide for the levy of a tax on such sales would be within the competence of Parliament. 2. I dismiss the petitions. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. K. Bavakutty Rowther
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker341; 1960CriLJ1461
Anna Chandy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of the Second Glass Magistrate, Kayamkulam in C. C. No. 305 of 1959 acquitting the accused Bavakutty Rowther, the registered owner of the Fish Van T.C.Q. 1765, of the offence punishable under Section 112 read with Section 89 (1) of the Travancore-Coehin Motor Vehicles Act X of 1125. Fish Van T. C. Q. 1765 when being driven on the Punalur-Kayamkulam Road on 25-10-1957 was involved in an accident. When the records of the van were gone through after the accident, it was found out that at the time of the accident the motor vehicle was not covered by a policy of insurance in the name of the accused who was then the registered owner.The heirs of the victim were denied compensation under the Third Party Insurance by the Insurance Department on the ground that the accused did not possess a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Section 89 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Government therefore ordered the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaran Balakrishnan Vs. Sankaran Oommini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker129
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. It is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that his plaint has been properly valued and that proper court fee has been paid on it. When therefore the Court sees reason to issue a commission under Section 6 of the Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, 1125 (corresponding to Section 9 of the Court-fees Act, 1870), albeit on objection taken by the defendant, it seems to me obvious that the plaintiff must bear the cost of the commission in the first instance; and doubtless if the objection turns out to be ill-founded the court will direct re-imbursement by the defendant. I think the power to direct the plaintiff to deposit the cost of the commission necessarily inheres in the section and this is the view taken in Basanta Kumar v. Kali krishna, 47 Cal WN 373 and in Thirupathaiah v. Mangapathi Rao, AIR 1948 Madras 345. With the observation in Jalekha Bibi v. Danis Mahomed, AIR 1930 Cal 65 at p. 68, that there is no power to require the plaintiff to deposit the costs...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Happey Valley Estate Vs. Labour Court, Quilon, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ776Ker
Velu Pillai, J.1. This is to quash an award by the labour court, Quilon, which held that the dismissal of an employee by his employer, the respondent 3, on the ground of misappropriation of the employer's funds, was Justified. The respondent 3 held an enquiry into the charge of misappropriation against the employee and found the same to be proved. The case of the employee was taken up by the union which has preferred this petition. The labour court, besides finding that the employee had misappropriated the funds, also came to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the employer at the enquiry was proper and justified.2. The ground urged before me on behalf of the petitioner was that the employee had only written the accounts, that all he did was at the instance of one Sri T. Jacob, and that he was not guilty of any misappropriation, and the petitioner's learned Counsel referred me to Exs. W. 4 to W 9. I may at once point out that these have nothing to do with the relevant entries...
Tag this Judgment!Mammoo Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ780Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner is the secretary of an association of employers called 'Manji Owners' Association.' Originally there was a reference by Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred to hereafter as the Act, to the labour court at Kozhikode. That Court having been abolished, the proceedings were transferred to the labour court, Quilon. On 17 June 1958, Government issued a notification Ex. A. by which in the exercise of the powers under Sections 33B(1) and 10(1)(d) of the Act, the proceedings were withdrawn from the labour court, Quilon, and were transferred and 'referred' to the industrial tribunal, Kozhikode. The petitioner thereupon objected to the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal, Kozhikode, to entertain the reference and to proceed with it, but the tribunal held against him by order Ex. B, This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification Ex. A. and the order Ex. B.2. A preliminary objection was rai...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. A.P. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC263(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Incometax and Sales Tax, Kerala State, North Zone, Kozhikode, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. The respondent is a landlord having extensive cocoanut gardens and agricultural lands. He sold cocoanut fibre made out of the husks of the cocoanuts plucked from his own gardens in the year 1954-55 for Rs. 10,784-4-11. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer proposed to levy sales tax on this amount. The respondent objected to the levy on two grounds, firstly, that he was not a dealer within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and secondly, that the cocoanut fibre sold by him constituted agricultural or horticultural produce grown by him on his own land and hence the sales of such produce were not liable to tax under the proviso to Section 2(i) of the Act. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer negatived both these contentions and assessed the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Alikunju Vs. Alikunju and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker343; 1960CriLJ1462
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. The Kundara Police Inspector having registered Crime No. 73 of 1959 under Sections 448, 454 and 505(4) (sic) of the Indian Penal Code against three accused, arrested accused 1 and 3 and took them to the Police Station after locking the house with the key produced by the accused. The accused filed a petition for the return of the key they produced before the police which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Quilon. Aggrieved by this order the first informant has come up in revision.2. A few facts may be referred to in the disposal of this Revision Petition. The first informant assigned the house alleged to have been trespassed upon and the compound in which it is situated to his daughter for her streedhanam and she and her husband were in occupation of the house for about 10 months after their marriage. After that her husband left the place in search of a job and did not return, Thereafter the house was occupied by the daughter and the petitioner's wife. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjikannan Nair and Others Vs. Tahsildar, Cannanore, and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR429(Ker)
VELU PILIAI J. - In the circumstances stated in C.M.P. Nos. 2369 of 1957 and 2367 of 1957, Writ Petitions Nos. 1280 and 1281 of 1956(M) are hereby restored, and they are being disposed of along with Original Petition No. 358 of 1957, by this judgment.One Sankaran Nair was assessed to income-tax on 'escaped income' for the year 1947-1948, under section 34 of the India Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred to as the Act), on April 24, 1953. By two deeds dated October 26 and October 27, 1952, he had conveyed some of his properties to some of the petitioners in these proceedings and the predecessors of some of them and others. For the realisation of income-tax under the assessment referred to above, the Income-tax Officer, who is the third respondent in O.P. No. 358 of 1957, issued a certificate under section 46(2) of the Act to the Collector, Cannoneer, the second respondent therein, who thereupon placed an attachment over the properties conveyed by the deeds mentioned above, under the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Moothan Vs. V.K.A. Krishnankutty Moothan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker348; 1960CriLJ1464
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This petition is by a person who has been convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, and it is directed against an order made by the appellate court under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 4 1/2 months after it had confirmed the conviction in appeal. The order was made on an application presented three months after the confirmation. 2. I am satisfied that the order complained against cannot stand for the simple reason that the essential requirement of the offence having been attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation, and of dispossession having been effected by such means, is not present. The conviction is based on the finding that the accused, who had an easementary right of passage through the property in question (the verandah of a building) squatted there; and from this both courts inferred that his intention must have: been to intimidate, or at least to annoy, the complainant. Neither in the complaint,...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate-general of Kerala Vs. thevar Tharakan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ109
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application made by the Advocate-General under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent, Chakidiyi Thazhathe-thil Thevar Tarakan.2. The facts that gave rise to this petition are as follows:The respondent is the 8th defendant in a suit O, Section 64 of 1943 pending in the Sub-Court, Ottapalam. The suit was one for partition and a preliminary decree for partition had been passed. Application for the passing of the final decree is pending and the same had been stayed by the High Court. The Commissioner Shri A. N. Parameswara Iyer, Advocate was the receiver appointed by the Court to manage the properties of the tarwad. There were reports filed by him complaining of various acts of obstructions committed by the respondent. The respondent was not being represented by a lawyer and he did not also appear in court, in response to the notice issued to him for the disposal of the petition. But instead, he was sending letters by post to the S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »