Kerala Court April 1961 Judgments
Harrisons and Crossfield Ltd., Quilon and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Quilo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker185
Ansari, C. J.1. This batch of six petitions challenges the writ petitioners' being assessed to the professional tax under the Proviso to Rule 18(2) of the Taxa-tion and Finance Rules . These had been framed under the Travancore District Municipalities Act, No. XXIII of 1116, hereafter referred to as the Act, whose Section 91 authorises the profession tax being levied, if the Council by a resolution determine such a tax being levied. The Section further enacts among other things that every company, which, after the date specified in the notification published under Section 79, transacts business within the Municipality governed by the Act, for not less than sixty days in 'the aggregate in any half-year, should pay a half-yearly tax assessed in accordance with the Rules in Schedule II. Such schedule comprises among other things Rules 16 and 18, which alone are relevant for purposes of deciding these writ petitions. Rule 16 gives slabs of half-yearly income for purposes of assessment to t...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Meenachil Ltd. Vs. Chacko Chacko Kalayakkathil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker333; [1962]32CompCas953(Ker)
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The question is whether this proceeding in misfeasance brought under Section 543 of the Companies Act read with Section 45-H of the Banking Companies Act by the Liquidator of a banking company is in time.2. The winding up petition was presented on 25-3-1949 and the winding up order was made on 10-12-1950, the liquidator being appointed for the first time on the same date. (There was a prior winding up order by the Bombay High Court on 27-9-1946 in respect of the British Indian Branches of the bank which was incorporated in what was then known as the Indian State of Travancore and the appointment of a liquidator consequent thereto, but that may be ignored for the present purpose). On 9-12-1953, the then joint liquidators made a report, Report No. 10, in which they alleged that certain sums were due from the directors named in the report and prayed that proceedings may be started against them under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 1913. The present appl...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Iyer Vs. N.C. Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ642
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application under Section 561A, Cr.P.C. for stay of trial of the criminal complaint in C.C. 24 of 1961 on the file of the District Magistrate of Palghat till the disposal of O.S. 107 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat on the ground that the matters in issue in both the cases are the same.2. The petitioner is a chartered accountant who had audited the accounts oil the Palghat Engineering College Council, a Society registered under the Societies Registration. Act. The respondent is the Secretary of the Council. On the ground that certain false, statements were made in the report with the intention of maligning and insulting him, the respondent in this petition filed a civil suit O.S. 107 of 1960 on 25.11.1960 in the Sub-Court, Palghat claiming damages of a sum of Rs. 5,100/-. On, 27.1.1961 the respondent filed a criminal complaint C.C. 24 of 1961 also for defamation under Section 500, I.P.C. before the District Magistrate, Palgh...
Tag this Judgment!John Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ439
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. Counter-petitioner No. 1 in M. U ,16 of 1960 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry has filed this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Sub-section 6 of Section 145 Cri. P. Code, declaring the respondents herein to be entitled to possession and restoring possession to them under the second proviso to Sub-section 4.2. The subject matter of dispute is a portion of survey No. 841/6 of Madapallypakuthy. The respondents herein presented a petition ' the Magistrate on 31-5-50 alleging that they were in possession of the property in dispute and that on 30-4-50 the counter-petitioner forcibly trespassed and occupied the property. The petition was forwarded to the police and the police submitted a report on 17-1-51. Why it was so delayed and why the respondents did not take any further steps is not known. On being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning %e land, the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Auto Transport Union (Private) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Alwaye.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR103(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - This petition challenges the validity of exhibit A, an order of the Income-tax Officer, Alwaye, dated 27th February, 1959. By that order penalties were imposed on the petitioner, Rs. 1,000 in respect of 1953-54, Rs. 2,000 in respect of 1954-55, Rs. 2,500 in respect of 1955-56 and Rs. 4,000 in respect of 1956-57.The petitioner was assessed to a tax of Rs. 14,842-9-0 for 1953-54, Rs. 19,551-6-0 for 1954-55, Rs. 11,440 for 1955-56 and Rs. 21,291-12-0 for 1956-57, and demand notices under section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were issued to him. The petitioner then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode, and by the orders in appeal the tax for 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 were reduced, for 1953-54, to Rs. 1,513-2-0, for 1954-55 to Rs. 3,458-0-0 and for 1955-56 to Rs. 847-15-0. There was no reduction of the tax for 1956-57.Exhibit A, the order impugned before us, was subsequent to the dates of the orders in appeal. Fresh demand notices were no...
Tag this Judgment!S. Veeraiah Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR100(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - This reference comes to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, with the following question :'Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that the whole of the claim of salary paid to Lakshmana Reddiar does not represent expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business ?'The assessee had claimed Rs. 36,000 as deduction due to the amount having been paid as salary to Lakshmana Reddiar, the general manager, for the previous year for the assessment year 1951-52. The Income-tax Officer had allowed only Rs. 20,000 and disallowed the rest, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the whole. His reasons for doing so were that there was an agreement between the assessee and the manager about the latter getting 1/3rd of the profit or suitable salary; that the manager had in the earlier years been getting 1/3rd of the profits but in 1124 M. E. there was a loss, that the manager thereafter relied on his alternative righ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Vs. Ambujakshi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker15
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In this appeal by the decree-holder the question fot decision is, whether in execution the sale of item 1 of the properties in the schedule of the decree can be allowed to take place. The decree comprised two items of properties and was based on a compromise, which made both of them liable for the satisfaction of the amount of the decree and to which the second defendant, though interested in item 1, was not a signatory. At first, the sale of item 2 was held, but was afterwards set aside on the ground, that there was not saleable interest in it. Subsequently, on an execution petition dated Vrischigom 21, 1125, for the sale of item 1, notice was served on the parties interested including the second defendant, and no objection being taken to it, the execution Court on Vrischigom 30, 1125, ordered execution to proceed against that item. On Makarom 11, 1125, the second defendant filed an objection to execution, in which the validity of the decree as against him based o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Raman Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker78
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. All these references are by the learned Sessions judge of Ernakulam recommending that the conviction and sentence passed On the accused in. these cases be set aside on the ground that the provisions contained in Section 242, Cri. P. C. have not been compiler) with. 2. Accused in all these eases are employees of the Indian Post and Telegraph Departmentwho were convicted by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate of Alwaye under Section 4 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance 1 of 1960. The charge against them was that they went On strike and absented from duty. When they were asked to show cause why they should not be convicted they pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate convicted them on their plea of guilty. 3. The accused took up the matter in revision to the Sessions Judge of Ernakulam and the point that was raised was that the learned Magistrate did not properly explain the accusation to the accused as contemplated under Section 242 Cr. P. C. and th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›