Kerala Court March 1961 Judgments
George Peter (C.) Vs. Its Workmen and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ484Ker
M.A. Ansari, C.J.1. This appeal seeks to vary the decision by a learned Judge of this Court, whereby he had rejected the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts culminating in the appeal to this Court can be briefly stated.2. Sixty-two workers of the appellant's factory, called C. George Peter Coir Factory, Alleppey, filed an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act IV of 1936, averring that they were entitled to leave with wages, balance bonus, lay-off compensation, notice pay, and retrenchment compensation, on the ground of closure of the factory, which was not bona fide. The claim was filed under Section 15 of the Act, which authorizes determination of the question whether the payment of wages has been wrongly withheld. The authority on 6 June 1959 allowed the application, holding the appellant liable on account of the aforesaid claims to pay Rs. 21,474-2-6. It is common ground that under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Forbas Ewart and Figgis (Private) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR50(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - The facts in the reference can be briefly narrated. The assessee had paid the advance tax of Rs. 1,00,431-7-0 for the assessment year 1952-53, and October 10, 1952, the assessment under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act was finalised. The Income-tax Officer then allowed Rs. 1,879-1-0 as interest on the advance tax; but on May 24, 1953 the aforesaid provision relating to interest was amended; and, according to the amendment, the assessee would only be entitled to interest till the last date of the year of assessment, which, in this case, would be March 31, 1952; and not till the date of assessment as the Income-tax Officer had done. It is common ground that this amendment to section 18A of the Income-tax Act had been given retrospective operation, and was deemed to have come in effect on April 1, 1952. Consequently the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 34 of the Act and found the assessee to be entitled to only Rs. 839-11-0 as interest instead of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Vimala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ443
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Qulin recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate directing the counter-petitioner In M. C, .12 of 11231 (M. E-) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code, be set aside as there is no executable order-2. What happened in the case was that pending the proceedings in count the parties filed a compromise petition and stated in Court that they had compromised the matter and the learned Magistrate passed an order striking off the case from the file- The correct order that ought to have been passed by the learned Magistrat was 'Petition on compromise filed. Order in terms of the compromise.'1 That would have meant that there was an order for the payment of the amount in terms of the petition of compromise and would have put the matter beyond all doubt that the provisions of Section 488 (3) Criminal Procedure Code could be invoked in order to se...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Malabar Market Committee Vs. Baputty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ546
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. The Secretary of the Malabar Market Committee had filed a complaint C.C. No. 8 of I960 before the Munsiff-Magistrate of Ponnani against the respondent Under Section 19(2) of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act. 1933 read with Bye-law No. 25 (6) and (18) of the bye-laws framed by the Committee. The accused in the case is a licensee carrying on his trade in arecanuts within a radius of 5 miles of the regulated market at vattamkulam. Under Bye-law 25(6), the licensee shall maintain regular accounts of all his transactions in commercial crops in prescribed form and shall send to the Secretary such reports and returns as may from time to time be required by him.2. That Pw. 1 the Secretary of the Market Committee had issued notices calling for the returns, that the notices, were received and acknowledged and that they were not submitted is admitted. The case of the accused was that on a prior occasion a criminal complaint had been filed against him in C.C. No. 15 o...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Ca ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR277(Ker)
VELU PILLAI J. - These writ petitioners impugn the constitutionality of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and the legality of their assessment to wealth-tax. The petitioner in O. P. No. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Mappila marumakkathayam tarwad who was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58, on the net wealth of his tarwad considered as an individual, and to whom a notice of demand, exhibit A-2, dated July 16, 1958, was issued for payment; the petition is to quash exhibit A-2. The petitioner in O. P. No. 538 of 1959 is the manager of a Hindu undivided family who was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58, on the net wealth of his family as on March 31, 1957, the valuation date as defined in the Act, and had paid it, but against whom, proceedings were commenced by exhibit P-1 notice dated March 24, 1959, under section 17 of the Act, to reassess him, on the net wealth of the family and in particular, on an amount of 17,00...
Tag this Judgment!Govardan Hathi Bhai and Company Vs. Income-tax Officer, Mattancherry, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR430(Ker)
VAIDIALINGAM J. - In this writ proceedings Mr. C.K. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, challenges certain orders passed by the income-tax authorities by way of reassessment and also levying penalty. So far as the question of penalty is concerned, the larger contention that was raised was to the effect that when once the Cochin Income-tax Act, VI of 1117, has been repealed by the Finance Act of 1950, section 38 of the Cochin Act is no longer available to the officer for exercising his powers of levying penalty.So far as this aspect is concerned, this contention is no longer available to the petitioner as will be seen from the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co. Therefore, so far as this aspect is concerned, the writ petition will have to fail and we have to hold that the officer has powers and jurisdiction which could be exercised for levying penalty in appropriate cases.Probably it is thi...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Johar and Sons Ltd. Vs. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker106
Joseph, J.1. The facts necessary for the decision of these appeals may be stated: Two brothers, Mathew and Kuruvilla, had an Overdraft account with the South Indian Bank Limited; as security for the amount borrowed they created an equitable mortgage of their properties on 14-10-1950. The South Indian Bank sued for recovery of the amount due under the transaction in O.S. No. 39 of 1954 of the District Court of Anjikaimal which suit was later transferred to the Subordinate Judge's court of Ernakulam where it was registered as O. S. No. 85 of 1958. Defendants 1 and 2 in that sun are Mathew and Kuruvilla and the 6th defendant is Johar and Sons, Ernakulam. The first defendant executed a mortgage on 18-1-1951 for Rs. 43,899-2-10 in favour of the Palai Central Bank Ltd. The Bank sued on the mortgage in O. S. No. 63 of 1953 of the District Court of Anjikaimal and the suit was later transferred to the Subordinate Judge's court of Ernakulam where it was registered as O.S. No. 84 of 1958. Mathew ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayana Panicker Vs. Unni Omana and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker52
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a civil suit, for action to be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act (32 of 1952) against the respondents who are some of the defendants in that suit.The applicant is the son, and the respondents, five of the members of the family of the late Kunnathat Matambil Thathunni Moopil Nair, Mannarghat, who died on 4th January 1960. The said Moopil Nair had executed a will on 10th July 1958 bequeathing inter alia all the properties attached to the Mannarghat Moopil Sthanam to big wife and children. A testamentary disposition of the entire Sthianam properties being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 30 of 1956, the members of his family challenged his competency to execute the will, whereupon the applicant, along with the festator and the other legatees, instituted a suit for declaration of the validity of the aforesaid will; and it is pending as O. S. No. 1 of 1960 in the Court of the Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Banu Asan and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, Quilon, and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR99(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - This petition seeks to vacate the order by the Collector dated November 18, 1959, and it has been filed in the following circumstances. The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Trivandrum, had on September 23, 1953, issued the certificate to recover Rs. 2,62,899-6-0 from the estate of one E. C. Govindan Asan, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Quilon, had sent a certificate dated December 21, 1953 for recovery of Rs. 33,807-5-0 from the legal representative of the same Govindan Asan. There is yet another certificate dated January 13, 1954, from the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Quilon, for the recovery of Rs. 1,11,753-6-9 from Messrs. E. C. Govindan Asan and Sons. The heirs of the deceased have raised several objections to their properties being attached and sold in realisation of the aforesaid certificates. His two sons and daughter had objected to certain properties being notified for sale on September 28, 1954, and his two widows had o...
Tag this Judgment!Mathu Paily Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ652
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. Cri. R.P. 273/60 is filed by the 2nd accused challenging his conviction under Section 324 IPC, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months awarded to him by the Addl. First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1080. Cri. R.P. 420/60 is by P.W. 1 and 4 who are the injured in the case against the acquittal of the 1st accused Under Section 326 I.P.C. and convicting him only under Section 324 I.P.C. and releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act. Notice was also issued by this Court to show cause why the sentence on the 1st accused should not be enhanced.2. The third accused in the case was acquitted. She is the wife of the 2nd accused and the first accused is their son. They are related to P.W. 1 and are neighbouring cultivators. For some time past there were disputes and litigation regarding the varamba separating their properties. On 18.10.58 it is stated the accused dug up the bun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »