Kerala Court January 1961 Judgments
Krishna Menon Vs. Narayana Ayyar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker21
Ansari, C.J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the decree, dismissing his claim to recover money from four persons. The appellant had on November 28, 1948, entered into an agreement with the father and his three SOILS, whereby the licence for the Foreign Liquor Tavern, Ernakulam which was held by the appellant, was agreed to be transferred in favour of the 2nd defendant in the case, who is one of three sons. The parties further agreed that the aforesaid four persons were to conduct the tavern from the date of the agreement, and in consideration pay Rs. 11,655-13-2 in daily instalments. There were also promises for payment by them of the kist to the Government and the rent of the building, in which the tavern was housed. As the agreement is important, we would extract below its relevant parts.' X XX XX (1) The Foreign Liquor Tavern, Ernakulam, auctioned for the year 1124, by Mr, Krishna Menon, for Rs. 9100/-, and situated in Mr. Kopramban's buildings, Jews Street, Ernakulam, is...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Varghese Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Ker237
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. These civil revision petitions which have been referred to a Division Bench, and others which are posted before us, have arisen out of orders passed by District Judges under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, settling the compensation payable under Section 10 proviso (d) of that Act, for damage caused to owners of immovable properties, in taking electric supply lines across their properties, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, or by Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.The Kerala State Electricity Board, to be referred to as the Board, which was constituted on April, 1957, and in whom, the liability to pay compensation is now vested, was not a party to some of these civil revision petitions. At the time they were referred, Shri K. V. Suryamrayana Iyer, appearing for the Board agreed, that it may be impleaded as a party, and accordingly the referring order itself directed its impleadment. At t...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Kurup Vs. Samuel Arulappan Paul and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Ker242
Ansari, C.J.1. This appeal is against the decision by the Election Tribunal, Quilon, in Election Petition No. 11 of 1960. Four persons had contested the double member constituency of Mavelikara in theelections to the State Legislature held on February 1, 1960. Two out of the four contestants were on behalf of the Communist Party, and the remaining for the United Front. The result showed each contestant to have secured the following number of votes :1. Gopala Kurup..... 54,3402. Kujanchan..... 84,0423. Chellappan Pillai..... 50,6624. Ramachandra Das..... 50,1702. As the first two, who had contested for the Communist Party, had obtained the majority of the votes, both were declared elected. But on March 12, 1960, one Samuel Arulappan Paul filed the petition in which this appeal arises, seeking declaration of the aforesaid elections being void, and praying the two contestants on behalf of the United Front to be declared elected. One of the grounds taken in the petition for the aforesaid d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Warriar.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR828(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 question referred is :'Whether 60% of the income of the assessee applied to the development of Arya Vaidyasala and the conduct of the hospital and school aforesaid is not exempt under section 4(3)(i) having regard to clause (b) of the proviso to that sub-section ?'Section 4 deals with the application of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof directs that any income, profits or gains falling within the classes specified therein shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them. The class of income specified in clause (i) of sub-section (3) is :'... any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, in so far as such income is applied or accumulated for application to such religious or charitable purposes as relate to anything done within the taxable terr...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Pillai and ors. Vs. Kuttan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker17
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. This G. R. P. is by defendants 1 and 5 against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum remanding for fresh disposal the plaintiff's petition for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C.2. The suit was dismissed on 23-3-1957. On 6-4-1957 the plaintiff filed an application in the trial court under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. He has also preferred an appeal before the District Court of Trivandrum, from the decree dismissing his suit.3. The application under Order IX Rule 9 was dismissed by the learned Munsiff on 19-11-1957 on the ground that no such application would lie in the face of the disposal of the suit on merits under Order XVII, Rule 3, C, P. C. The appeal from the decree preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed in the District Court Qn 5-11-1938. Meanwhile the plaintiff had preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal from the order dismissing his application for restoration of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge before whom that Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala and Coimbatore Vs. Malayalam Planta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR114(Ker)
M. S. MENON J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal, Madras Bench 'B', under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estate duty paid by the company under section 84 of the Estate Duty Act is a revenue expenditure deductible in computing the assessees business income for the assessment years in question ?'The assessment years concerned are 1955-56 and 1956-57. The estate duty paid and claimed as a deduction for 1955-56 amounts to Pounds 2,605-9-4 and for 1956-57 to Pounds 3,809-1-6.Sub-section (1) of section I0 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation carried on by him, and sub-section (2), that such profits or gains shall be computed after marking the allowances specified in that sub-section. The last of the allowances specified therein - the allo...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Vs. Ruckey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker63; (1962)ILLJ339Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the bonus received by the judgment-debtor-appellant, is exempted from attachment under Section 60(1) proviso Clause (h) of the Civil Procedure Code. That clause exempts from attachment, 'the wages of labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or in kind'. The bonus Paid to the appellant by his employer was under the provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement between the employer and the employees, which is Ext. D-1, the relevant clauses of which are 27 and 29. The material part of Clause 27 is as follows :'The quantum of bonus shall be 15% of the net profits of the company for the financial years 19S8-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62'.and Clause 29 reads:'In case of inadequate profits, there shall be a minimum of 15 days' salary payable as minimum bonus provided the profit is not turned into a loss'.If anything at all is clear from these provisions, it is, that bonus is payable only if profits have accr...
Tag this Judgment!iyakku Mathoo Vs. Julius Elias Metropolitan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker19
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This is yet another litigation arising out of the unfortunate dispute in the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church between the Catholics and his supporters on the one hand, and the champions of the Patriarch on the other, the ghost of which one had thought (as it appears, wishfully thought) had been laid by the Supreme Court by the deci-sion reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. T. P. Avira, 1958 Ker LT 721 : (ATR 1959 SC 31). The point arising here is whether there was a proper plaint on which the Court could take cognizance of the suit. This question was tried as a preliminary issue, and, the Court below having found in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants have come up in revision.2. The long cause title in the plaint describes the plaintiff thus (shedding honorifies and other unnecessary words): 'For and on behalf of Jacob III, Patriarch of Antioch, his delegate in India, Mar Julius Elias Metropolitan'. The signature both at the foot of the plaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaru Nampiathiri Vs. Govindan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker26
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No. 37 of 1957 on the file of the Pathanamthitta Munsiff's Court attached the unpaid purchase money due from the petitioner in this C. R. P. to the 2nd defendant in the case. The petitioner contended that he had discharged the amount payable to the 2nd defendant under two unregistered receipts on dates prior to the attachment and therefore he was not liable to pay anything under the attachment. The liability of the petitioner was therefore enquired into by the learned Munsiff under Rule 46-C of Order XXI, C. P. C. and it was found that the discharge pleaded was untrue and that the garnishee was liable to deposit the amount in court as per the attachment. The garnishee has come up for a revision of the above-said order.2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is appealable under Rule 46-1 of Order XXI, C. P. C. and therefore this petition for revision of the same is incompeten...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillai Madhavan Pillai and anr. Vs. P. Sadasivan Pillai and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Ker7; 1963CriLJ53
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This Revision petition is filed by the complainants against the order passed by the Sub Magistrate of Chengannur in C. C. 666/59 allowing a preliminary objection raised by the accused and dismissing their complaint. The allegations in the complaint were that on 23-7-59 they were severely beaten by the four accused, carried in the police van and unlawfully detained in the police station till 5P.M. when they were sent to the hospital.2. The accused presented an application to the learned Magistrate in which they alleged that what really happened on that day was that a large crowd gathered in the premises of the Mulakkuzha Government High School in connection with the anti-Government agitation, that they along With the Executive First Class Magistrate had gone to maintain law and order, that the crowd pelted stones at the police party, that the Executive First Class Magistrate declared the assembly as unlawful and ordered them to disperse and when they refused ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »