Kerala Court August 1960 Judgments
Asiz Rawther Vs. Kanjirapally Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker289
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. An auction of the right to vend meat was held by the first respondent Panchayat, in the year 1959, at which, the petitioner was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 5,005/-, out of which, he paid Rs. 1,251.25 pursuant to the auction. He was vending meat exclusively within the limits of the Panchayat. Subsequently, he came to learn, that auctions of such right are not valid. All the same, the Panchayat was taking steps to realise the balance due from him. He has therefore filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to bring up the records relating to the auction to have it quashed, to prohibit the Panchayat from interfering with the petitioner's business and to direct the second respondent, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, to issue a licence to him for the sale of meat for the year 1959-60. 2. It was common ground, that the auction was held by the Panchayat before the necessary bye-laws were framed by it and that it was not valid. The bye-...
Tag this Judgment!Mayuranathan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ260Ker
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. This original petition is by a Government servant, who has been placed under suspension pending enquiry on la charge of misconduct against him, for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the order of his suspension. The misconduct charged against is that he had claimed and cashed travelling allowance falsely alleging that he had taken his wife and seven children with him when he was transferred to Trivandrum from Ernakulam, thereby having cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 322 odd in July 1958, and that he had also submitted a bill for travelling allowance to the extent of Rs. 197 odd when he was transferred back to Ernakulam though that bill has not been cashed for want of sanction of the Comptroller. The Government has conducted some investigation through the Superintendent of Police, X-Branch, Trivandrum, and as a result thereof has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie case of misconduct against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!A.T.K.M. Employees' Association Vs. Musaliar Industries (Private), Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ81Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. An industrial dispute between the managements of several concerns and their employees, was referred for adjudication, under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,' to the industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum. One of the matters so referred, was the fixation of scales of pay and of dearness allowance for the employees. The tribunal passed an award, which is marked Ex. P. 1, allowing increments over the salary or wages which they were receiving 'at present' and settling a formula based on 'the present' salary or wages, for fixing the total salary and allowance in each case. It will be observed, that the salary and allowances were related to the ' present' salary or wages, a word which gave rise to different interpretations. It would appear, that one of the managements, A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar & Sons, Ltd., Quilon, the first party before the tribunal, had stopped their business in that name in August 1956, but may be taken to have resumed...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.G. and Brothers Bus Service, Palghat Vs. K.S. Kandaswami Chettiar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker159
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The first respondent had been operating a stage carriage, having registration number M D E 2317, on the route Pollachi to Gopalapuram within the Madras State, under a permit granted to him by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. On 13th June, 1960, he made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Palghat, at Trichur, for a temporary permit for the aforesaid stage carriage, to operate on the route' Gopalapuram to Kozhinjampara within the Kerala-State, which was granted on June 18, 1960, and a temporary permit was issued to him, copy of which is Ext. P-3.The timings allowed to him on the route covered by the temporary permit were in co-ordination with those allowed to him under his pucca permit for the route Pollachi to Gopalapuram. The petitioner who is an operator of stage carriages on the interstate, routes of Pollachi to Palghat via Gopalapuram and Kozhinjampara, and Pollachi to Pudur via Gopalapuram and Kozhinjampara, has preferred this pet...
Tag this Judgment!idichandi Mathai Vs. Narayanan Unnithan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker27
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The suit is for redemption of an otti and kuzhikanom executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in favour of the predeces-sor-in-interest of the defendants, evidenced by Ext. A dated 14-12-1080. The only contention that was urged before the trial court by the defendants was that Ext, A was a renewal of another mortgage of 1.061 and as such the defendants are entitled to the value of improvements effected on the property since 1061. The trial court decreed the suit assessing the value of improvements as S. Rs. 3,527, chakrams 9 and cash 3. The lower appellate court affirmed that decree with only a slight modification in the value of improvements enhancing the same to Rs. 3636, chakrams 5 and cash 9. In all other respects the decree of the court below was affirmed by the first appellate court. This Second Appeal is against the latter decree.2. The main ground urged in this appeal before me by the learned counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Cherian Vs. Ouseph Korathu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker36
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. Ist defendant is the appellant. The suit property was mortgaged by one Cherakara tarwad in favour of the Jst defendant as per Ext. B dated 18-11-1096. The mortgage deed comprised of 4 items of property and separate amounts were advanced on security of each of these Items. Item 4 of the mortgage-holding has been assigned to a stranger by the mortgagee. One half of item 1 and item 3 were assigned by the 1st defendant in favour of his brother who is impleaded in this case as the 2nd defendant by Ext. 1 partition deed between them. One half of item 1 and item 2 were retained by the 1st defendant and this suit is for redemption of Ext. B mortgage so far as the properties retained by the 1st defendant are concerned. The plaintiff claims his title to redeem as per Ext. A sale deed which he has obtained from the mortgagor tarwad. The suit has been decreed concurrently by the courts below and in this Second Appeal four questions are raised namely:1. The division of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaran Nambiar Vs. Ramunni Nambiar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker290
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This is an application filed by the 18th respondent to transpose him as the supplemental appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The Second Appeal was preferred by the 2nd defendant alone in his capacity as the karanavan of the thavazhi of defendants 1 to 36. He died on 15-8-1959. Before his death, the arguments on the Second Appeal were fully heard and the case was reserved for judgment. But, the learned Judge who heard the case did not pronounce the judgment, and has retired. The case was, therefore, reposted for hearing of arguments; and then the fact of the death of the sole appellant in the case was brought to the notice of the court. The 18th respondent, being the successor in office of karnavanship in the thavazhi of defendants 1 to 36, applied on 22-6-1980, by C. M. P. No. 2877 of 1960, to record him as the legal representative of the deceased appellant in the Second Appeal. There were 82 respondents in the Second Appeal. Therefore, the 18th respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Goverdhan Hathibhai and Co. Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Ag ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1960
Reported in: [1960]12STC464(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. This batch of three revision petitions seeks to vacate the petitioner having been charged tax on sales of kerosene oil, in the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1957-58. The claim for the exemption from the tax on the aforesaid sales had been made on the basis of the dealer's being only the agent, and having earlier registered as such; but the claim had been rejected on the ground of the sales not being on behalf of Caltex India, Ltd., because of the petitioner's having bought the oil from the aforesaid concern earlier. The petitioner has, for the assessment year 1953-54, claimed exemption on Rs. 8,45,905-9-6 out of the total turnover of Rs. 17,63,726-11-0, on the ground of the amount representing sales of kerosene as commission agent for Caltex India Ltd. As regards the next assessment year 1954-55, the amount asked to be exempted is Rs. 7,49,804-84 nP.; and so far as the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, Rs. 4,17,151-33 nP. has been requested to be exclud...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Vs. Nonshi Devshi Katawalla (Pt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1960
Reported in: [1962]45ITR47(Ker)
M. S. MENON J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Officer Appellate Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether the proceedings under section 34 to recover the excess interest allowed in the original assessment under section 18 A(5) are valid ?'The facts of the case in so far as they are necessary for an appreciation of the question are summarised as follows in the statement of the case :'The assessee is a private limited company. Its assessment for the year ending April 30, 1951, corresponding to the assessment year 1952-53 was completed on February 28, 1953, under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act. Its total income was determined at Rs. 1,87,694. The tax determined was Rs. 81,529-10-0. The assessee was given credit for a sum of Rs. 1,532-5-0 representing interest on advance tax paid by the assessee under section 18 A (5). The interest on the advance t...
Tag this Judgment!Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR528(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs by the company to the managing agency firm as constituted on February 5, 1951, was compensation for premature termination of office of the managing agents and whether the payment was an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business of the company (2) Whether the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs was an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business of the company ?(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the legal expenses of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 1,765 and the travelling expenses of Rs. 1,876 and Rs. 2,013 and costs of Rs. 2,000 were expenditures wholly laid out for purposes of the business ?'It is common ground that the third question requires no separate co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »