Kerala Court February 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.
State of Kerala Vs. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker8
P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the Order of acquittal passed by the Addl. Sub-Magistrate of Ponkunnam in C. C. No. 68 of 1960. The charge against the accused was that on the night of 5-11-1959 he broke open the lock of a shop room belonging to the 1st informant. Ho was caught red-handed and entrusted to the police. The police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused. The learned Magistrate on a perusal of the records under Section 173, Cri. P. C. framed charges against the respondent accused under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 511, I. P. C. and posted the case for evidence. 2. Originally it was posted to 22-4-1900. On that day the prosecutor and the accused were pre-sent but the witnesses were not present, sO the case was adjourned to 11-5-1960. On that day when the case was called the accused and two witnesses were present. The prosecutor was not present. It is stated in the appeal memorandum that the Head Constable who was in charg...
Mathu Varkey Vs. Pyli Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker286
Velu Pillai, J. 1. In this appeal, which is directed against a preliminary decree for the dissolution of an unregistered firm and for the taking of accounts relating to it, the only question which was raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant arid which arises for decision, is whether the latter part of the decree can be sustained, under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which may be referred to hereafter as the Act, Section 69, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act have created a bar to certain classes of suits relating to an unregistered firm; but Sub-section (3) of Section 69 has provided an exception, the relevant part of which is in these terms:69 (3) 'The provisions of Sub-section (1) and (2).....shall not affect.....' (a) 'The enforcement of any rights to sue for the dissolution of a firm or For account of a dissolved firm, or any right Or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm or.....''.It is a proposition which, we think, can hardly admit of any doubt,...
Yusuf Jan Sahib Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Quilon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker349; [1961]42ITR637(Ker)
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash Ext. P2 dated March 2, 1959, by which the Income-tax Officer refused to treat the petitioner, an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, 'as not being in default as long as' the appeal preferred by him against the assessment 'is undisposed of,' by virtue of Section 45 of the Act. The petitioner submitted a return of income for about ten thousand rupees, but the Income-tax Officer assessed him, according to his best judgment, on seventy-nine thousand odd rupees and imposed tax to the extent of over thirty-four thousand rupees.The petitioner deposited the admitted income-tax of two thousand rupees, and preferred an appeal against the assessment. A sum of nearly six thousand rupees due to the petitioner by way of refund of income-tax for previous years was adjusted by the Income-tax Officer, and the balance of tax payable by the petitioner was over twenty-four thousand rupees. The petitioner m...
S. Syed Mohamed Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker386
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner was doing business as Custom-House Broker subject to the approval or licence, which may be referred to hereafter as licence, made or granted in the year 1949, in pursuance of Section 202 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, referred to hereafter as the Act, the material parts of which before amendment read as follows :'202. No person authorised to act as an agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entrance or clearance of any vessel or the import or export of goods or baggage shall so act in any custom-house unless such authorization is approved by the Customs-collector.''Such office may, in case of misbehaviour of the person so authorized, suspend or withdraw such approval.....'He had been obtaining a renewal of the licence from time to time, till the Assistant Collector of Customs declined by Ext. P5 to renew it after June 27, 1957. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution and is for quashing Ext. P5 and for the issue o...
Madhavi Amma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker116
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash certain proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which may be referred to hereafter as the Act. The notification Ext. A under Section 4(1) of the Act. was dated January 6, 1959, and published in the Government Gazette on January 27, 1959. Ext. A provided that:'Under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act the Government of Kerala direct that in view of the urgency of the case the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to this case.'The operation of Section 5-A thus having been dispensed with by the exercise of the power conferred under Section 17(4) of the Act, Ext. D, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated January 6, 1959 was published in the Government Gazette on February 3, 1959. In my opinion, this petition has to be disposed of on the objection raised by the petitioner, that in making Exts. A and D, the provision in Section 17(4) of the Act has not been ...
Ninan Vs. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Trivandrum and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker359
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The injury complained of by the petitioner, who runs a bus or, to use the technical language of the Motor Vehicles Act, operates a stage carriage, so as to give him the right to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order by the 1st respondent the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum, granting a revision of timings to the 2nd respondent a rival operator, ignoring the objections of the petitioner, is that as a result of this change in timings, the 2nd respondent's bus, KLK 2267 will run from Koyhancheri to Kulathupuzha, a distance of 50 miles, overlapping to that extent the route of the petitioner's bus, K.L.Q. 350 from Mallappally to Kulathupuzha, just a few minutes ahead of the petitioner's bus, thus lapping the fat of thetraffic and leaving for the petitioner's bus only what it cannot swallow. But, on perusing the Order passed by the 1st respondent, I find that due notice has been taken of this objecti...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. M.J. Abdul Rahiman Sait
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker345; [1961]42ITR631(Ker)
Ansari, J. 1. Abdul Ralnman Sait is the heir of one Mohammed Jaffer Hussain Sait, who died on 6-5-1952. Thedeceased had earlier filed returns for the assessment year 1950-51 on 2-3-1951, and for the assessment year 1951-52 on 28-2-1952. Because of his death the assessment for 1950-51 was made on bis son, on 31-12-1954 and for 1951-52 on 18-2-1955. The tax for the first assessment year had amounted to Rs. 1,47,577-15-0 and was to be payable in threeequal instalments on January 21, February 25, and March 28, 1955. Similarly the tax for the other assessment year had come to Rs. 53,810-13-0 and was to be realised by two equal instalments on March 30, and April 30, 1955.Demands under Section 29 of the Income-tax Actwere made from the assessee's son, and the noticeunder Section 29 of the Income-tax Act was served onthe legal representative on 7-1-1955. He requested on 27-1-1955, monthly instalments for payment of the tax for the assessment year 1950-51, and theIncome-tax Officer permitted in...
Govindan Neelambaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker258; 1960CriLJ1088
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted under Section 302. I. P. C. for having caused the death of his brother Raveendran and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The deceased Raveendran was the eldest member of the family and was managing and taking the income from the common properties given by the father to all of them. He was addicted to drinks and was spending the income from the properties without giving anything to the other members for their maintenance. He used to come fully drunk to the house and create trouble in the house. On 26th of March 1959 Raveendran got the cocoanuts plucked from the trees in the paramba in which they were living and the cocoanuts thus plucked had been heaped in the courtyard of their house.The appellant came there and took 4 or 5 cocoanuts for himself. Raveendran did not like this and in an angry tone demanded that the appellant should drop the nuts there. The appellant said that be HAD also rights in the propertie...
Francis Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ407Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Special First, Class Honorary Magistrate under Section 14(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for a period of two years from 20 January 1958. Before the expiry of the period, an order, Ex. P. 2, was passed by Government by which the petitioner was ordered to 'cease to hold the office forthwith' and notifications were issued withdrawing the magisterial powers which had been conferred on him. The petition is to quash Ex. P. 2 as having been made in violation of the guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution.2. Though Ex. P. 2 does not specify the ground on which it was made, the counter-affidavit has disclosed that the action was taken, as the petitioner was reported to have indulged in political activities. The removal of the petitioner from office was therefore by way of punishment. The withdrawal of the magisterial powers was under Section 14(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and followed as a matter of course.3. The principal ...
Chappila and ors. Vs. Chemmaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker200
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This revision petition arises out or a suit, for partition in which, the present petitioners, defendants 27 to 35, joined the plaintiff in asserting that the properties in the suit were joint family properties as against the claim of the legal representatives of the 1st defendant -- the 1st defendant died pending suit --' that they were the separate properties of the 1st defendant. The trial court found that some of the properties were joint family properties and the rest the separate property of the 1st defendant. It passed a preliminary decree accordingly, and against that decree the plaintiff appealed while the legal representatives of the 1st defendant filed a memorandum of cross-objections.While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff decided not to prosecute it and he filed I. A. 217 of 1955 for leave to withdraw it. (Why he thought leave necessary is not apparent). Thereupon the present petitioners, who were respondents 26 to 34 in the appeal, filed I,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »