Kerala Court March 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.
Moolji Jaitha and Co. Vs. Seth Kirodimal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker21
Raghavan, J. 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 127 of 1952 on the file of the District Court of Anjikaimal is the appellant before us and the suit was for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs case is that, on defendant's enquiry, he offered to sell 660 tins of coconut oil at Rs. 33/- per tin Bilticut, that this offer was accepted by the defendant by his telegram dated 15-1-1952 and thus a binding contract came into existence between the parties. In confirming the acceptance the plaintiff had also asked for remittance of advance by telegram dared 16-1-1952. On 21-1-1952 the plaintiff again sent a telegram for despatch instructions and fcr remittance of advance. Instead of sending despatch instructions and advance, the defendant cancelled the contract by his telegram D/- 22-1-1952. This telegram was received by the plaintiff on the next day, when he wired back to the effect that the defendant was not entitledd to cancel the contract and that if he did not require the goods, the pla...
Moosa Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker355
Ansari, J. 1. This appeal arises from the order by a learned judge of this Court, dismissing the appellant's petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution. The facts culminating in the order are shortly these : Kannan, a Harijan, was living in a hut within the plot owned by the writ petitioner, and eviction proceedings had been taken against him due to his non-payment of rent. He, however, continued to occupy the but and the police started proceedings against him for the trespass, which resulted in his being made to furnish security for good behaviour.About that time notification under Section 4(I) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Kerala Gazette on December 31, 1957, and it is common ground that provisions of Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act were dispensed with and orders for urgent assumption of possession were issued. The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the aforesaid order on two grounds, one being that the acquisition was not for public purpose, as a...
Narayana Kani Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker391; 1960CriLJ1602
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. The prosecutor laid a charge-sheet against the revision petitioner under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, referred to hereafter as the Act, for being in unlawful possession of a gun without the requisite licence, He pleaded guilty to the charge against him, under Section 251A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code and was convicted by the 1st Class Magistrate at Nedumangad and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the appeal taken by him against the conviction to the Sessions Court at Trivandrum, he raised the contention, that the conviction was illegal, as the prosecution was not supported by the sanction prescribed by Section 29 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge repelled this contention, holding, that under Section 29 no sanction is necessary.2. Section 29 of the Act reads as follows : 'Where an offence punishable under Section 19, Clause (f) has been, committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into fo...
K. Krishna Warrier Vs. T.R. Velunny
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker350
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In this revision petition two questions were raised:first, whether Shri T. R. Velunni, District Magistrate at Trichur at the relevant time, who was also the Commissioner of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, referred to hereafter as the Act, was competent to prefer the complaint and secondly, whether under the proviso (aa) to section 200, Crl. P. C. his examination by the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, could have been dispensed with. I see no difficulty whatever in answering the first question against the revision petitioner, for the complaint in this case fulfils the definition of the term 'complaint' in Section 4(1)(h), Crl. P. C. and the Magistrate is competent under Section 190(1)(a), Crl. P. C., to take cognizance of the offence. This was also conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.2. On the second question, the answer would depend on whether, the complainant in preferring the complaint, ...
Vasudevan Namboodiri Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker133
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of Jenmies as defined by the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071, as amended by the Amendment Act XII of 1108, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent, the State of Kerala, to revise in accordance with Section 46 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the commutation rates for Jenmikaram, as settled in kind, fixed by a notification Ext. P dated March 4, 1944. The right of the Kudiyan to pay in money, the value of the commodity deliverable in kind is derived from Section 18 of the Act which has provided that:'Where the Jenmikaram or any portion of it, consists of paddy or other commodity the Kudiyan shall be entitled to pay in money the value of such paddy or other commodity at the commutation rates fixed under the provisions of Section 46.'Section 46 omitting parts of it which are not material, is in the following terms:--Section 46 (...
Kerala Arecanut Co., Trichur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker373; [1961]43ITR442(Ker)
Ansari, J.1. The assessee, whose business is of a commission agent in arecanut, claims under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act deduction of sums assessed payable as sales-tax. Act XVIII of 19155 had become operative on October 1955, and had amended the General Sales-tax Act, XI of 1125. Thereafter a single point levy of six pies in the rupee had become chargeable under Section 3(1) on the purchase turnovers of the last dealers in the Kerala State. The assessee was collecting till October 1, 1955, the tax on sales made by him in addition to his commission of 6 1/4 per cent, but thereafter he raised the commission to 7 1/2 per cent. On November 24, 1955, the Sales-tax Department made provisional assessment on the assessee for the last purchases he had made on behalf of the non-resident arecanut dealers, which assessment was finally revised on September 15, 1955 The tax was then computed at Rs. 31,000. On March 31, 1956, the assessee entered Rs. 18,652-15-6 in his account books as e...
Chakkunny, (Surety) Vs. Viswanatha Iyer, (Decree-holder)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker312
Joseph, J. 1. This appeal arises from an order dismissing objections raised by a surety to enforcement of the bond given by him when certain moveables belonging to the first defendant were attached before judgment. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver was impleaded as additional defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a compromise and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. When the decree-holder sought to enforce the bond, the surety objected contending that the bond should be deemed discharged as the suit was decreed on compromise and not on contest and as the first defendant has been adjudicated an insolvent. These objections were overruled and execution was ordered against the surety; he has therefore preferred this appeal. 2. As regards the first point, whether the appellant has become discharged on account of the compromise decree, it was contended that the parties contemplated ...
Kesavan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker36; [1960]11STC747(Ker)
Ansari, J.1. This group of sixteen petitions are under Art. 226, and challenges the constitutionality of the General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, No. XIV of 1959 whereby sales of toddy have been, charged with the tax, and three amendments been made in the General Sales Tax Act, No. XI of 1125. Firstly a new clause (j-3) has been added to Section 2 of Act No. XI of 1125 and runs as follows:(j-3) 'toddy' means the fermented or unfermented juice drawn from cocoanut, palmyra date or any other kind of palm tree, but shall not include juice drawn into receptacles freshly coated internally with lime or otherwise treated so as to prevent any fermentation'.2. The next is in Section 4 where the words 'other than today, arrack' have been substituted, and the section now reads as follows :'The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the sale of electrical energy and any goods other than toddy, arrack and foreign liquor on which duty is or may be levied under the Travancore-Cochin Prohibition Act, ...
Kesavan Bhaskaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker23
Ansari, J. 1. This appeal suit arises from the order of this Court, which has been passed on February 19, 1960, and thereby a petition invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed. The ground of dismissal is that the matter is essentially within the discretion of the authority competent to grant the exemption, and the exercise of the discretion cannot be interfered with by the Court in the exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226. The facts of the petition are that the mother of Saigal had requested the Director of Public Instruction on October 8, 1959, for exemption under Rule 127E of the Travancore Education Code to be given to the son. The Rule provides as follows:- . 'No English School Leaving Certificate will be granted to any person unless (a) he has been a pupil on the rolls of Form VI of a recognised English High School during the whole of the school year in which he applies for a certificate; (b) he has completed fifteen years of age on or...
Chakkappan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker297; 1960CriLJ1212a
S. Sankaran, C.J. 1. Petitioners are accused 1 to 6 in Crime No. 77/1959 registered at the Chalakudt Police Station. They were arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Inspector in charge of that station. The arrest was on 18-6-]956 and on the next day they were produced before the First Class Magistrate at Chalakudi with a request that they may be remanded to custody pending investigation of the case registered against them. The Magistrate passed an order remanding them to custody for a period of 14 days. On be-half of the petitioners an application was filed before the Magistrate challenging the legality of their arrest by the Inspector of Police and also of the Magistrate's order remanding them to custody. The Magistrate dismissed that application. The present revision petition is directed against that order. 2. The circumstances under which a Police Officer may arrest a person without a warrant from a Magistrate, are enumerated in Section 54 of the Code o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »