Kerala Court April 1960 Judgments
T.V. Kochuvareed Vs. Kasim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker342
M.S. Menon, J.1. This petition ig directed against the order of the District Judge of Trichur in M. P. No. 1848 of 1956 in O. S. No. 125 of 1955. The suit is for damages for the breach of a contract. 2. The defendant (2nd respondent) filed a written statement raising various contentions on 17-1-1956. On 28-1-1956 the plaintiff (1st respondent) applied for attachment before judgment of an estate belonging to the defendant (2nd respondent). In that proceeding the petitioner before us executed a security bond and averted the attachment. 3. On 12-7-1956 the defendant filed a petition withdrawing all his contentions and agreeing to a decree as prayed for in the plaint. The suit, we are told, has not yet been decreed. 4. On 24-7-.1956 the petitioner filed M. P. No. 1848 of 1956 and prayed for an order 'impleading the petitioner as a defendant in the suit or alternatively allowing the petitioner to enter appearance and defend the suit in the name of the defendant and for that purpose to do al...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. E.P. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker18
M.S. Menon, J.1. This petition by the State of Kerala questions the correctness of the order of the District Munsiff of Trivandrum in C. M. P. No, 2215 of 1957 in O. S. No. 477 of 1956. The petition states the facts necessary to appreciate the contention urged before us as follows:'Respondents 1 to 3 obtained simple money decrees against Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 executed his decree by attaching and selling movables belonging to the debtor. Respondents 2 and 3 claimed rateable distribution. The State has to get Rs. 1225-3-11 from Respondent No. 4 as sales tax under 3 assesments made by the Sales tax Officer, Trivandrum. Before the amounts were disbursed the State made an application objecting to the payment of the amount to respondents 1 to 3 and claiming preferential payment to the State towards the sales tax due from the debtor. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the petition stating that the State's claim was not tenable. This petition is to revise the said order'.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker50; [1960]30CompCas511(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff, the Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, issued two cheques, Nos. 355875 and 355896, on the Central Bank of India Ltd., Barabazar Branch, Calcutta. According to the counterfoil of cheque No. 355875 (Ext. A-3) the date of that cheque should be 24-10-1949, the payee, the Anglo Swiss Watch Company, and the amount covered Rs. 82-8-0. According to the counterfoil of cheque No. 355896 (Ext. A-4) the date of that cheque should be 10-11-1949, the payee, New Standard Watch Company, and the amount covered, Rs. 165-0-0.2. Cheque No. 355875 when presented at the office of the Central Bank of India Ltd., Barabazar Branch, Calcutta on 3-11-1949 bore the date 29-10-1949. The payee mentioned in the cheque was Amulya Ratan Saha Ray, and the amount, Rs. 1,765-0-0. Cheque No. 355896 when presented at the office of the Central Bank of India Ltd., Barabazar Branch, Calcutta, on 17-11-1949 bore the' date 14-11-1949. The payee mentioned in the cheque was Radheshyam Agarwalla, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugham Vs. Kadalundy Co-operative Urban Bank and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker123; (1960)IILLJ207Ker; (1960)IILLJ207Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent, a Cooperative Bank registered under the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Pending an enquiry against him for irregularities, he was placed under suspension, by order Ext. A dated 9-10-1956 by the President of the Bank, This was followed by Ext. B dated 2-1-1957, an Order passed by the Board of Directors of the Bank, dismissing the petitioner from employment. Ext. B was confirmed by the decision of a sub-committee of the Board of Directors, dated, 3-4-1957. The petitioner's complaint is, that these orders have been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice and of the rules framed under the Act, and of the bye-laws Ext. B-l, framed by the Bank.2. Two preliminary objections have been raised on behalf of the Bank by its learned counsel, first that the petition ought not to be entertained on account of the delay in preferring it, and secondly,...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. George Mathew Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala and Coimbato ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker353; [1961]43ITR535(Ker)
Raghavan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A-Bench has referred the following question to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to initial and extra depreciation under Section 10(2) (vi) and (via) in respect of the new diesel engines fitted to the buses in the place of petrol engines'.2. The assessee is a transport operator with a fleet of eight buses. During the accounting year ending on 16-8-1954 he purchased two new diesel engines, one on 16-3-1954 for Rs. 9990/- and the other on 15-7-1954 for Rs. 9946/-. These engines were installed in two buses in replacement of the petrol engines and for the accounting year ending on 16-8-1954 she claimed normal depreciation under Section10(2)(vi) paragraph (1), initial depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) Paragraph (2) and extra depreciation under Section 10(2)(via).The Income-tax Officer allowed normal depreciation under ...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent, Erumeli Estate Vs. Labour Court, Quilon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker44
Ansari, C.J. 1. This writ petitioner is the Superintendent of the Travancore Rubbers Ltd., and his employer had newly constructed a cooly line consisting of seven rooms. Before the construction had been completed, seven of the coolies employed by the Estate entered and each occupied a room. This happened on the night of 27-12-1950, and at the same time two other workers unauthorisedly occupied what had been till then filled by two out of the seven employees who had without permission occupied the new rooms.The writ petitioner's case is that they did it without permission, that the unauthorised conduct resulted in hindering the construction, that next morning the petitioner asked them to vacate, that only one obeyed by vacating the new room he had occupied, and that the others failed notwithstanding repeated demands by the petitioner on December 28, 29 and 30, 1956. The next part of the petitioner's case' is that thereafter notices were served individually on the workers to attend an en...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Kumarappan Vs. Secretary, Home Department, Trivandrum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker378
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the Rite, building and equipments known as Umayal Talkies, Cannanore, to be referred to hereafter as 'Umayal Talkies' which were leased by him to the second respondent for a period of two years from December 1, 1956. Before the expiry of the term of the lease, the petitioner had issued to him a Notice to quit and had not assented afterwards to his continuance in possession.After the lease, the second respondent had been exhibiting cinematograph films in Umayal Talkies, under a licence which expired on June 30, 1959 and when he made an application for a fresh licence under the provisions of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, which may be referred to hereafter as the 'Act', the petitioner objected on the ground that his possession of Umayal Talkies was unlawful, and that he had not produced before the licensing Authority under the Act, who was the Commissioner of the Municipal Council, Cannanore. 'documentary evidence to sh...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone Vs. Travancore Rayons Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC178(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. This petition under Section 15-B(1) of the General Sales Tax Act, XI of 1125, is by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, and the respondent is the Travancore Rayons Ltd., Rayon-puram, Perumbavoor. The dispute between the parties is over the rebate of 50% under Section 8 of the General Sales Tax Act, hereafter mentioned as the Act. The facts of the case are that the respondent's sale turnover for rayon and transparent paper had during the assessment year 30th May, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, amounted to Rs. 61,50,087, and the turnover of the sales in club house for the same year had come to Rs. 25,111, the two amounting to Rs. 61,75,198. The sales tax on those at the rate of 3 pies would normally come to Rs. 96,534-5-6 ; but the dealer had already deposited Rs. 97,597-8-0 and would be admittedly entitled to the difference claimed. In addition the dealer was claiming 50% rebate on the sales amounting to Rs. 68,26,943, and should 'this claim be allowed the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›