Kerala Court December 1961 Judgments
A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker215
Anna Chandy, J. 1. This is a petition for the is sue of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner Shri A. K. .Gopalan, is a sitting member of the Parliament and the president of the Indian Kisan Sabha. He wasarrested by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam, on the 10th of this month at Tripunithura under Section 151, Criminal procedure Code, The circumstances which led .up to the arrest as disclosed in the reply affidavit filed by the Circle Inspector, the remand report and the other records produced before court are as follows: The Circle inspector had information that the petitioner and the ten others who were arrested along with him were organising a mass of volunteers under the auspices of the Kerala Karshaka Sangh and were instigating and, inciting them to form themselves into unlawful assemblies and to cause obstruction-to public servants in the discharge of their official duties by forcibly blocking all entrances to Government Offices.On the morning of the 10th the Circle Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmodayam Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR478(Ker)
M. S. MENON, Ag. C.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 the income derived by the assessee trust from business in kuries is exempt from tax under the provisions of section 4(3) (i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Act 25 of 1953 for the five years 1952-53 to 1956-57 ?'The assessee is the Dharmodayam Company, Trichur, a company registered under the Cochin Companies Regulation. The licence granted to the company of January 21, 1919, under section 32 of that Regulation - the section corresponds to section 32 of the Companies Act, 1956 - is in the following terms :'Under section 32 of the Cochin Companies Regulation, the Diwan is pleased to direct that the company named The Dharmodayam Company, Trichur which has for its objects the promotion of charity, education, industry, etc., and the doing of all such other things as are incidental or co...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Mathew Vs. Ayyappan Kutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker164
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal raises a question, of some nicety, viz., whether an alienation of tarwad property, not in conformity with the conditions laid in Section 21, of the Travancore Ezhava Act (III of 1100) is void or voidable.2. The facts are as follows ; The suit property belonged to Valiyaveettil tarwad of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 25, governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act lit was mortgaged with possession to the predecessor of the 1st defendant on 26-10-1083, and subsequently sold to the 1st defendant on 4-12-1113 M.E. The latter alienation was by the then karanavan and some of the other members of the tarwad, but had not 'the written consent of all the major members of the tarwad' as required by Section 21 of the Travancore Ezhava Act. Treating it as void, the plaintiff, on behalf of the tarwad, has instituted this suit to set aside the sale and to redeem the mortgage abovesaid.The 1st defendant contended inter alia that the suit, having been instituted more than 12 y...
Tag this Judgment!The Asiatic Government Security Fire and General Assurance Co. Ltd., M ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1965Ker214
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 67 of 1958 of the Munsiff's Court of Cochin, the Asiatic Government Security Fire and General Assurance Company Limited, is the appellants in this second appeal. It was the respondent in A. S. No. 131 of 1959 of the Sub-Court of Cochin, the successful appeal filed by the respondent before us, the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited.2. The Travancore-Cochin Prawn Curers' Co-operative Marketing Society Limited shipped a consignment of five hundred bags of prawns from Cochin to Rangoon by S. S. Jalatapi, a vessel belonging to the respondent. The goods shipped were insured with the appellant against the risk, among other things, of damage caused by 'Rain &/or Fresh &/or Sea &/or River Water' (Ext. P-1).3. Twenty-eight bags out of the shipment o five hundred bags were damaged by contact with fresh water and the appellant settled the claim in respect of the said damage by the payment of a sum of Rs. 3282/-. The suit is to recover that sum from the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Eechukutty Menon Vs. Agricultural Income-tax, Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR589(Ker)
In this writ petition the question that arises for decision is as to whether the petitioner-tarwad is liable for payment of super-tax under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (XXII of 1950).According to Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon, learned counsel for the tarwad liable for payment for super-tax is illegal and void.In order to appreciate the contentions that have been raised by Mr. V. K. K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleaders appearing for the respondent, it is necessary to set out the circumstances under which this write petition has been filed.There is no controversy that the petitioner is an undivided Marumakkathayam tarwad; and for the 1960-61 there was a pre-assessment notice issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chittur. It is not necessary for me to go into the various other matters mentioned therein because in this writ petition the attack relates exclusively only to that part of the final assessment order, exhi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahimam Haji Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: [1963]14STC155(Ker)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition Mr. V. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Hozdrug, under exhibit P-1, making the petitioner liable for payment of sales tax for the year 1959-60.2. The main attack that is made as against this order of assessment are twofold viz.,(i) that the order is arbitrary and also is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice ; and(ii) that there is no jurisdiction in the officer to levy surcharge and that the provisions relating to the levy of surcharge are illegal and void.3. It is not really necessary to consider the second contention that has been raised also, in these proceedings. In the view that I take regarding the first ground of attack as against this order, this writ petition can be disposed of on that basis.4. The petitioner appears to have sent his return for the year in question and though there were one or two notices issued to him for produc...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sadanandan Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Ker59
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, in which the facts arc more or less common, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether any fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners, under Article 16 of the Constitution, have been in any way, violated.2. in response to the notification published in the State Gazette, calling for applications for direct recruitment to a few posts to Probationary Sub-Inspectors of Police, both the petitioners had applied for selection to the said post.3. The Public Service Commission interviewed the various applicants, including the two petitioners, and selected among others, the petitioners also for recruitment as Probationary Sub-Inspectors of Police, in the Police Department.4. The communication sent to each of these petitioners, by the Public Service Commission, and a copy of which has been filed as Ext. P1 is as follows:'KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Telegraphic Address 'KERSERCOM' ... TelephoneNo. 2447 No. R. II...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnummal Mohammed and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ175
Anna Chandy, J.1. These appeals by the accused and the reference tor confirmation by the Sessions Judge arise out of the judgment condemning the first appellant to death and the second to life imprisonment, for murdering the first accused's brother Alavi on 1-4-1961 at about 10.30 P. M.2. The first accused Mohammed, and his younger brother, the deceased Alavi, the two sons of P. W. 9 Aydro were living together with their parents and sister and her children including P. W. 4. P. W. 9 the father was an agriculturist assisted by Alavi and not helped by the first accused who had a trade of his own in cashew-nuts. Disliked by the parents, brother and sister the accused soon became a 'terror' in the house, beating the sister and brother and demanding the management of all the properties for himself and his children. The aged father P. W. 9 approached mediators in vain and finally sent a petition (Ext. P-1) to the Sub-Collector, Malappuram against the first accused and his wife on 22-24961 to...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Devassya and anr. Vs. State of Kerla
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ536
Anna Chandy, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 who are brothers are the appellants. The fourth accused is the sister of accused 1 and 2 and the third accused is their father. The first accused is convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to death and the second accused under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-.2. The charge against them was that they along with accused 3 and 4 in pursuanee of their common intention caused the death of one Mathai by stabbing him with a malappuram knife. The first accused is said to have inflicted four incised injuries including the fatal one and the second accused of having caused a minor injury on the scapula. Accused 3 and 4 who are acquitted are said to have held Mathai in their grips while the first accused stabbed him. The incident took place at 7.30 P.M. on 2-7-1961 on the Ettumanoor Athirampuzha road at a place near the shop of P.W. 3.The prosecution case is that the first accused at about 7-30...
Tag this Judgment!Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd., Kozhikode Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Kozhiko ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker220; (1962)IILLJ169Ker
ORDERG.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, relates to the construction to be placed On the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The management, who is the petitioner herein, charge sheeted the second respondent, for certain acts of misconduct stated to have been committed by him. According to the management, a due and proper inquiry was conducted and it was satisfied that the worker is guilty of misconduct under the Standing Orders of the Company. Accordingly, the petitioner dismissed) the second respondent, by its order dated 6th, August 1959, the dismissal to take effect from 3-6-1959. The petitioner offered one month's wages to the second respondent who has declined to accept the same.3. As, an industrial dispute, I. D. 60/59 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal Kozhikode, the petitioner applied to the Industrial Tribunal, by M. P. 303/59 for a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »