Kerala Court October 1961 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.
M.P. Kuttappa Kurup and ors. Vs. Sub-collector, Chengannur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker252
ORDER1. In these three Writ petitions, though the petitioners are different, all of them attack: the proceedings in connection with the acquisition ot the properties which are owned by the respective petitioners and in respect of which action is taken by the State Government for acquisition by virtue of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 11 of 1089, dated 24th June 1960. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1066 of I960 is interested in the following items. Survey No.Extent. A.O.430/1 A-2838430/1 A-1778430/1 A-284408/1 F/l89 408/1 F/27The petitioner in O. P. 1067 of 1960 is Interested in thefollowing items :408/1 A-21-90409/1 B-847409/1 B/3-61-28429/17-48The petitioner in O. P. No. 1318 of 1960 is interested in only one item, namely, 408/1-C-4 ot an extent of 44 cents.2. All these lands, along with certain other lands, were notified under Section 6 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act by the State Government on 24th June 1960, that they are needed ...
A.M. Varkey Vs. J.R. Motishaw
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1964Ker114
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This is an application under Section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 Drought by one of the 145 members of a company called the Udayagiri Rubber company Limited, with the written consent of 16 of the otter members for compliance with the requirements of Section 399. A principal share-holder of the company, J. R. Motisaw by name, has, on his application, been impleaded as a respondent under Section 405. Notice was issued to the Central Government as required by Section 400, and the Central Government has made a representation confined to affirming or denying such averments of fact in the application as are within the knowledge of the Registrar of Companies and referring to an order made by It under Section 409(2) on a complaint made by the managing agents of the company, another company by the name of A. V. George and Company Limited regarding a threatened change in the Board of Directors. The company itself has entered appearance through its Managing Agents an...
Arthala Tea Estates Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural In ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR349(Ker)
The petitioner, the Arthala Tea Estates Limited, was assessed to tax under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, in respect of the assessment year 1955-56. The accounting period covered by the assessment is the period from April 1, 1954, to March 31, 1955.It is common ground that any agricultural income derived by the assessee from the estates and received prior to April 1, 1954, is not liable to assessment under Act. According to the assessee the income concerned was derived and received prior to April 1, 1954, and, according to the department, subsequent to that date. This is the controversy we are called upon to settle.That the tea concerned was plucked and processed prior to April 1, 1954, is not disputed by the department. That the tea concerned was sold after April 1, 1954, and prior to March 31, 1955, that is, during the relevant accounting period, is not disputed by the assessee. The only question for determination, therefore, is whether in a case like this ...
Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ435
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. Accused in C.C. 61 of 1959 on the file of the First Class Magistrate's Court, Trichur Who has been convicted for an Offence Under Section 6(3) of the Indian, Explosives Act Act IV of 1884 and whose appeal before the Sessions Judge of Trichur was dismissed has filed this revision petition.2. The accused is the proprietor of Jupiter Trading Concern in Trichur, a firm licensed to possess fireworks and Chinese Crackers. On 15-9-1958, P.W. 4 the Assistant Inspector of Explosives checked the consignment of fire works which P.W. 7, the manager of the accused had taken to the Trichur Railway Station. On checking the stock t was found that some of the fireworks contained cassia chlorate. Possession of an explosive mixture containing sulphur in admixture with potassium chlorate is prohibited under the Government of India Notification No. M. 1217 dated 9-2-39. At the request of the accused the samples were sent Co the Chemical Examiner, Trivandrum, who also certified t...
Bhaskaran Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR334(Ker)
M. S. MENON, Ag. C.J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of Vaidialingam J. dismissing O. P. No. 662 of 1960. By that petition under article 226 of the Constitution the appellant sought the cancellation of two orders, one dated February 11, 1960, and another dated April 26, 1960.The order of February 11, 1960, was an order of assessment under section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1959-60 in respect of the appellants income for the accounting period 1958-59. The order of April 26, 1960, was an order rejecting the appellants request to deal with the matter afresh in view of a return filed by him on February 15, 1960.The assessment under section 23(4) was made on February 11, 1960. It is common ground that the appellant did not comply with the notices under sub-section (2) and (4) of section 22 of the Act and that his non-compliance was the basis for the best judgment assessment under sub-section (4) of section 23.Sub-section (3) of section 22 of ...
Swasti Cashew Industries Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: [1961]12STC691(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition can be shortly stated. The petitioner is a firm doing business as exporters in cashew kernel, and for 1957-58 had been assessed to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The former enactment was operative in Kasargod, where the petitioner carried the business from 1st April, 1957, to 30th September, 1957 ; and thereafter, the latter enactment was applied covering, in the assessment year, the period from 1st October, 1957, to 31st March, 1958. Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, cashew was taxed on the purchase turnover at two per cent, and under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1125, 'cashew and its kernel' were taxed at four per cent, on the purchase turnover in the hands of the last dealer in the Kerala State. It is common ground that during the period of the assessment when the Madras General Sales Tax Act was operative in the area, the petitio...
State of Kerala Vs. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker258; 1964CriLJ101
Govinda Menon, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Mukundapuram acquitting the accused in C. C. No. 708 of 1960 who was charged under Section 225-B of the Penal Code for having escaped from the lawful custody of P. W. 1 in whose custody he had been detained.2. In execution of the decree in O. S. 55/57 on the file of the Irinjalakuda Munsiff's Court an arrest warrant was Issued for the arrest of the accused. The endorsement of Pw. 2, Ext. P-1 on the back of the warrant shows that the accused was arrested and produced before the Nazir. Ext. P-6 is the signature of the accused In token of his having been arrested. The accused was produced before the Court and it was ordered that he be detained in the custody of peon Pw-1 for four days in order to enable him to pay up the decree amount. Accordingly the accused was in the custody of pw-1 when on the 12th December, 1959, midnight he escaped from custody. Enquiries were Said to have ...
P. Krishna Bhatta Vs. Narayana Bhatta and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker322
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 242 of 1952 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara Is the appellant before us. He and the 3rd defendant are the sons of one Venkataramana Bhatta who is now no more, by his first wife Laxmi. Venkataramana Bhatta had another wife, Hon' namma, and a son by her, Shankernarayana.2. Venkataramana Bhatta is the son of one Ramaya Bhatta and his wife Santamma. Ramaya Bhatta executed a registered will, Ext. A-1 dated 1-2-1916, and died thereafter. According to the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant they obtain o by the will absolute rights in the property of which redemption is sought in the suit.3. According to the 1st and 2nd defendants they did not do so. Their contention has been accepted by the court below and the suit dismissed with costs.4. The relevant clauses of Ext. A-1 --it is agreed --are Clauses (6), (7) and (8). They read as follows:--'(6) After my death my wife, Santamma and my son, Venkataramana Bhatta, will take possession of the property...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›