Kerala Court June 1961 Judgments
Caltex (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker49; [1961]12STC655(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. In view of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co., of India v. Commercial Tax Officer (1960) 11 STC 764 ; (AIR 1901 SC 315) and J. K. Jute Mills Co., Ltd, v. State of Uttar ,Pradesh, (1961) 12 STC 429 ; (AIR 1961 SC 1534) the only contention urged before us in this case is that the supplies made to foreign ships in the Port of Cochin should be considered as not liable to sales tax on the ground that those ships are floating islands of the country whose flag they fly. There is no merit in this contention.2. The concept of a floating island is only a metaphor, and the fallacy lies in mistaking the metaphor for a manifestation. The strongest expression of the concept is found in a statement of Blackburn, J.:'It has been decided that a ship which bears a nation's flag is to be treated as part of the territory of that nation. A ship is a kind of floating island'.Another statement of the Judge -- more precise and accurate is:'There are a vast number of cases which dec...
Tag this Judgment!Lonetree Estate Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ319Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. An industrial dispute between the petitioner, the management of Lonetree estate, land its workmen represented by the respondent 2, one of the labour unions in the estate, was referred by Government to the respondent 1, the industrial tribunal, Alleppey, for adjudication, issue 2, one of the matters in dispute, related to the payment of unemployment compensation to the workers for four days from 1 July 1958. Following a strike by the members of the staff, the management laid off the workmen for four days from 1 July to 4 July 1958 both days inclusive. There was an attempt at conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and a memorandum of settlement was drawn up between the management and some of the workmen represented by two other labour unions of the estate. Under Rule 59 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the memorandum of settlement bad to be signed by the representatives of the unions specified in that behalf. It was common ground that suc...
Tag this Judgment!Lipton (India) Ltd. Vs. Moosa (A.P.M.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ82Ker
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The suit which the respondent herein wanted to bring in forma pauperis was be clearly bereft of case of action and be patently barred by time that I think that, in allowing his application for the purpose, the Court below failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, namely, by Order XXXIII, Rule 5, of the Code which Bays [see Clauses (d) and (d1)] that the Court shall reject such an application where the allegations do not show a cause of action or the suit appears to be barred by any law.2. The respondent was in the employ of a company known as Lipton (India), Ltd. On information laid against him by certain officers of the company in July 1952, he was prosecuted by the police for offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. He was however acquitted by the Court on 6 December 1957. Meanwhile he had been dismissed on 6 August 1952, and on 4 August 1958 he brought his present application under Order XXXIII, Rules 1 and 2, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kumarakath Ithack Souri Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1961
Reported in: [1961]12STC721(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J. 1.This is a petition under Section 15-B of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. In order to attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under that section the Appellate Tribunal should have 'either decided erroneously, or failed to decide' a question of law.2. The contention urged before us is that the Tribunal should have found that the petitioner was only a commission agent and decided the case on that basis. The order of the Appellate Tribunal makes it quite clear that it proceeded on the basis of a concession made and that no question of law was decided erroneously or failed to be decided by it. The order specifically states :'The appellant's advocate, however, was amenable to the assessment being modified on the basis of the certificate produced by the appellant from the Indian Chamber of Commerce.3. The rest of the order is confined to the contention of the petitioner that the rate of Rs. 140 per thousand nuts for the whole year was not proper. The Tribunal w...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhunny Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ645
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. The revision petitioner was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudukad and produced before the Sub-Magistrate Mukundapuram, in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Magistrate of Jaipur City is Rajasthan and was released on his executing a bail bond for his appearance before the Jaipur Magistrate on 4.10.1960. Subsequently he appeared before the Mukundapuram Magistrate and moved the position alleging that he was not the person mentioned in the warrant aI1d the arrest was made due to either a deliberate or an accidental mistake in ideality. The learned Magistrate returned the petition to be presented before the Jaipur Magistrate.The petitioner challenged the correctness of that Order in a revision petition filed before the District Magistrate, Trichur. The learned District Magistrate while observing that it was not proper for the Magistrate to return the petition without disposing it of one way or the other held on a consideration of the materials available t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sadanandan Vs. Madhava Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker68
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appealis directed against the order of the Election Tribunal, Trichur, dated the 28th February, 1961, in Election Petition No. 14 of 1960.2. The election was it fill three seats in the Council of States. There were seven candidates, the appellant (petitioner) and respondents 1 to 6. Of these, respondents 4, 5 and 6 did not secure any vote at all in the election. Respondents 1, 2' and 3 were declared elected.3. The petition is directed against the election of the 1st respondent. The contention of the appellant is that he and not the 1st respondent should have been declared elected. There is no attack as far as the election of respondents 2 and 3 is concerned 4. The entire controversy centres round two ballot papers, Exts. P7 and P8. The Returning Officer accepted Ext. P7 as valid and rejected Ext. P8 as invalid. According to the appellant the Returning Officer should have- rejected...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Malabar Market Committee Vs. A.V. Bapputty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ549
Anna Chandy, J.1. The Secretary of the Malabar Market Committee, Kozhikode, is the appellant. The respondent is a licensee under the Malabar Market Committee dealing in arecanuts and having business within five miles of the regulated market at Vattamkuiam. Under by-law 25(6) framed under the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act XX of 1933, every such licensee is bound to submit the returns of his business transactions in the prescribed form to the Secretary of the Market Committee as and when required by him. On 1-1-1960 the complainant sent a registered notice to the respondent calling upon him to furnish returns of his transactions for the year 1959 in compliance with bye-law 25(6). Since the respondent did not furnish the returns a further notice was sent to him intimating that a prosecution will be launched in case he failed to submit the returns within ten days. As the respondent failed to furnish the returns even then, the complainant filed C.C. No. 14 of 1960 on the file of the M...
Tag this Judgment!P. Newcome Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR52(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - The assessee in this reference is employed by Messrs. Peirce Leslie & Co. Ltd. and has been charged income-tax on Rs. 2,160 in the following circumstances. The employer had provided for the assessee as well as for other employees old age, by instituting what is called a staff group insurance scheme. It consists in the creation of a trust for effecting insurance on their lives, and for this purpose the employer had to contribute 5% of the employees salary, whereas the employee had to give 10% of the pay. The trust, in turn, had to take out two separate policies on the employees lives, and held them in trust.Under the above arrangement, the employer had, for the year ending March 31, 1956, that being the previous year to the assessment year 1956-57, paid Rs. 2,160 to the trustee, the aforesaid amount being the annual premium on the assurance taken by the trust on the life of the assessee, who showed it in part 'D' of his return. The Income-tax Officer, however, taxed it as ...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Narayana Shenoi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1961
Reported in: [1961]12STC665(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. The revision petitioner had been conducting oil mills at Vypeen under the name and style of 'Vypeen Oil Mills'. That is his family business, and consists of purchasing and converting copra into coconut oil and cake and selling within the State and outside, the coconut oil and cake so manufactured. The Sales Tax Officer had for the assessment year 1951-52 found the taxable turnover to be Rs. 2,60,644-11-3, excluding the price of copra, whose oil has been sold outside Kerala State. Subsequently, he began proceedings to reopen and enhance the assessment; and by a fresh order of 12th June, 1954, found the turnover to be Rs. 6,89,809-15-3, on which the tax held payable came to Rs. 10,788-5-0, whereas the earlier tax had amounted to Rs. 4,072-9-0. The order enhancing the turnover has been objected to on the ground of being beyond the authority of the officer ; but the ground was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who has held that the officer had acted wit...
Tag this Judgment!T. Bapputty Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker69; [1961]12STC722(Ker)
Ansari, C.J. 1. The revision petitioner is a registered firm dealing in timber, and had been assessed by the Sales-Tax Officer, Kozhikode, on price of sleepers sold to the railways. The petitioners had entered into the contract to supply on November 23, 1956 and supplied goods worth Rs. 1,34,115-15-1; which amount was asked to be exempted, due to the sleepers having been delivered outside the State, and the sales being thus inter-State. The Sales Tax Officer held that since the contract was concludedat Kozhikode and rail delivery was effected at Kallayi yard within the State, the sales were intra-State and the turnover taxable. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had also declined to exempt the amount, and the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal relying on its previous decision in Tribunal Appeal No. 168/57. The ground is that the sale under the contract 'had become complete at Kallai, within the State of Kerala, where the sleepers were loaded into wagons. Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›