Kerala Court August 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.
A.K. Kaderkutty Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tellicherry and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker32
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit against the third respondent, instituted in the Sub-Court at Tellicherry, to enforce repayment of an alleged loan of Rs. 20,000/-. The suit was decreed by that Court, but on appeal, this Court remanded the case for a fresh decision after recording further evidence. One of the principal items of evidence on which the petitioner relies in the suit, is the entry relating to the transaction, in each of his two account books. He sought to establish the genuineness of the account books, which was impeached,' by attempting to prove, that they had been produced earlier, before the Income-tax Officer in assessment proceedings against him, under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Act V of 1955), which may be referred to hereafter as the 'Act'. There was no reference in the assessment order, Ex. P-l, dated 31-12-1955, to the account books, but a letter, Ex. P-2, was addressed by the petitioner on 30-4-1956...
P.N. Krishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker29
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as Work Superintendent, in the Work Establishment Cadre in the Public Works Department in July, 1950. In January 1955, all qualitied persons in the Work Establishment, including the petitioner, were taken to the permanent establishment, but their appointment had to he regularised by the Public Service Commission. Government ordered by Ext. P I on June 9, 1955, that the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, should send up a list of qualified persons to the Public Service Commission for regularisation. The Chief Engineer did send up a list of some of them, but not of others including the petitioner, and the appointment of those whoso names were sent up, was regularised. On September 16, 1958, Government issued an order directing the reversion of the petitioner and others, whose appointment had not been regularised, to the Work Establishment. The Chief Engineer implemented this order, by Ext. P 2 dated November 1, 1958. This petition is to quash Ext...
Pathumma Beebi Vs. Krishnan Asari and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker247
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 248 of 1951 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Palghat is the appellant in S. A. No. 541 of 1955. The legal representatives of the 3rd defendant in that suit are the appellants in S. A. No. 542 of 1955.2. The suit was for the recovery of the property described in the A Schedule to the plaint. The total extent of the land comprised therein is about 8 1/2 cents. Of these, about 2 1/2 cents constitute the property specified in the B Schedule to the plaint and the balance constitutes the property specified in the C Schedule thereto.3. The whole of the property was purchased under Ext. B-3 dated 5-9-1876. The purchaser was one Suppa Animal, wife of a Pathan Asari. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that she was, till her death sometime prior to 1879, the real owner of the property.4. On her death the properties devolved on her three daughters, Ayya Ammal, Vella Animal and Meenakshi Ammal. Meenakshi Ammal died before 1909, Vell...
Abdulla and anr. Vs. Assankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC730(Ker)
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. The disposal of the matter by the lower Court is not quite satisfactory, and the case has to be sent back; but in doing so, certain points require to be clarified by this Court. While producing, pursuant to summons, certain records relating to assessments of sales tax, copies of which were applied for by the revision petitioners, who are defendants 4 and 5, the Sales Tax Officer claimed privilege under Rule 47 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, and under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The privilege was upheld by the order sought to be revised, though it is not clear, under which of the above provisions. Section 123 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant as the documents do not relate to affairs of State. Rule 47(1) aforesaid, is in the following terms :All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder, or in any evidence given or af...
V. Ambi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ135
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of his wife by cutting her with a chopper at about 12-30 p. m., on 4-1-60 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, He was funnel not guilty and acquitted of the offence Under Section 326, I. P. C-, for having caused grievous hurt to his mother by cutting her with a chopper.2. The prosecution case briefly is this.-The accused was for some time employe J in Bombay. Then he came back to his native village and married the deceased Narayani Animal, daughter of Pw. 11 in January 1959. The accused, his mother Pw. 1, his sister Fappamnvii Pw. 2 and his wife were living together in his house in Tharur village. After the marriage Pw. 2 had gone to 'Ernakulam and was staying with another brother of hers who was employed there, In November 1959, Pw. 1 went to Ernakulam to her son and while she was returning she brought back Pappamma] with her. While Pw. 1 was away the accused ...
Kaderkutty Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tellicherry and Others ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: [1962]45ITR401(Ker)
The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit against the third respondent, instituted in the Sub-Court at Tellicherry, to enforce repayment of an alleged loan of Rs. 20,000. The suit was decreed by that court, but on appeal, this court remanded the case for a fresh decision after recording further evidence. One of the principal items of evidence on which the petitioner relies in the suit is the entry relating to the transaction in each of his two account books. He sought to establish the genuineness of the account books which was impeached by attempting to prove that they had been produced earlier before the Income-tax Officer in assessment proceedings against him under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (V of 1955), which may be referred to hereafter as the 'Act'. There was no reference in the assessment order, exhibit P-1, dated December 31, 1955, to the account books, but a letter, exhibit P-2, was addressed by the petitioner on April 30, 1956, to the Income-tax O...
Eapen Chacko Vs. Collector of Kozhikode
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker10
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the lessee of an estate in Malabar and at whose instance a cattle-pound was established with the sanction of the District Collector accorded under Section 4 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, seeks to quash Ext. P-7, by which the Collector ordered its abolition. It appears, that on complaints received, a notice, Ext. P-6, dated February 6, 1959, was issued to the petitioner, to show cause why the pound should not be abolished. An enquiry was wade, and abolition was ordered after the enquiry.2. The learned Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection, that the order impugned is purely executive and ought not to be interfered with, under Article 226. The objection is well-founded. In Bir Bikram Deo v. Secretary of State for India, ILR 39 Cal 615 at page 662, the Privy Council observed, that the'Establishment and maintenance of cattle-pounds under the superintendence and control of Government officials empowered to obtain the assistance of ...
Ryru Nair Vs. Govindan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker75
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Two questions are raised in this Civil Revision Petition, one regarding the interpretation of an order, Ext. A3, as to whether it is an order appointing a receiver and the other regarding the appeal ability of an order refusing to remove a receiver. The trial court held that Ext. A3 was not an order appointing a receiver, but the order only allowed the petitioner herein to continue in possession of the properties on certain terms and in that view it dismissed the application filed by the respondent herein to remove the petitioner from receivership.The respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which reversed the decision of the trial court and directed the discharge of the receiver. The petitioner, who was respondent in the lower appellate court and who was directed to be removed from receivership, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition and, as I have already indicated, two contentions have been urged before me, one regarding th...
Vypeen Transport Corporation (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Transport App ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker77
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These Original Petitions are to call up to the High Court the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur dated 2-4-1959, passed in Motor Vehicles Act Appeals Nos. 24 to 28, 31, 32, 38, and 43, of 1959 to be quashed by an, order under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the said order is vitiated by gross errors apparent on the face of the record.2 There is an island near the Cochin Harbour, by name Vypin. 15 miles in length and 1 1/21 miles in breadth which is very thickly populated. Stage carriage coaches are plying through the entire length of this island from Vypin to Pallipuram. There are six buses running regular services on this route, but they are found inadequate to meet the pressure of passenger traffic therein. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A.) by a notification dated 11-8-1958, invited applications for the grant of permits for putting four additional stage...
Kankali Vava of Anchuthayyil Purayidom Vs. Velayudhan Soman of Rantuth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker208
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. 107 of 1954 on the file of the Alleppey Munsiff's Court is the Revision Petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage and for recovery of the property. The mortgage was executed by the plaintiff's karnavan in favour of the ancestor of the defendants in the suit. The 1st defendant is the mother and defendants 2 to 5 are her children. The 5th defendant was a minor and is still one. The plaintiff applied for appointment of the 1st defendant as the guardian of her daughter the 5th defendant.Since notice of that petition was returned with the endorsement that the 1st defendant refused to accept the notice one Kunju Thampi was appointed as the guardian. The affidavit in support of the application for appointment of Thampi as guardian does not indicate bow he was qualified to be the guardian of the minor or that he has any interest in the minor. While the suit was hotly contested by defendants 1 to 4 the guardian of the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »