Kerala Court July 1961 Judgments
Muhammed and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC54(Ker)
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In this writ petition to quash exhibit P 1, the notice of provisional assessment and of demand for the payment of sales tax under Rules 13 and 14 framed under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, referred to hereafter as the 'Act', and exhibit P 5, the notice of provisional assessment and of demand for the payment of surcharge under Rule 8 framed under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, issued to the petitioners, the jurisdictional point arising for determination is, whether the petitioners who are growers of rubber in their estate and who collect and convert latex into rubber sheets and sell them, are dealers within the meaning of the Act. Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, sales tax is payable only by a dealer and under Section 2(d) a 'dealer' is any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods. If a person who grows trees and sells the produce therefrom, is by such sale alone a dealer, there is no point in having denned a 'dealer', as one carry...
Tag this Judgment!Achuthan and ors. Vs. Karthiyayani Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker105
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The first defendant, who is the appellant in C. M. A. 36 of 1959, was appointed receiver of the suit property and the predecessor of the appellants in C. M. A. 122 of 1959 stood guarantee for the due performance of his duties and obligations under the receiving order. The receivership was terminated on 19-8-1947 by a specific order of the court. On 1-11-1950, the plaintiff moved CMP 1911 of 1950, to call upon the receiver and his surety to make a deposit of Rs. 600/-which the receiver was admittedly bound to have deposited in court as the income of the property under his management. On February 2, 1959 the learned Subordinate Judge, Cochin, passed the impugned order directing the receiver and his surety to make the deposit in one month.2. The receiver contends that the only court which can call him to order is the court which appointed him; and cited in support Chaparaddi v. Kabil Molla, AIR 1943 Cal 244 and Fatechand. Tarachand v. Parashram Maghanmal, AIR 1953 B...
Tag this Judgment!Mammad Keyi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker110
Velu Pillai, J.1. These writ petitioners impugn the constitutionality of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the legality of their assessments to wealth-tax. The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Mappila mirumakkathayam 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, Ext. A-2, dated July 16, 1958, was issued for payment; the petition is to quash Ext. A-2. The petitioner in O. P. 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, end had paid it, but against whom, proceedings were commenced by Ext. 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 17,000 paras of paddy...
Tag this Judgment!Podan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ339
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. The six revision petitioners were convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate. Badngara, under Section 160 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 50/- each or in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.2. The case against the accused is that at about 4 p.m. on 19.10.1960 accused 1 to 4 on one side and accused 5 and 6 on the other beat each other on the public road in Thekkunni Bazaar arid thereby committed an offence of affray. Accused 1 Podan went to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 1 on 20.10.1960 and complained that on 19.10.1950 at about 4 p.m. he was beaten by die accused 5 and 6 on the public road in the bazaar. The Sub-Inspector noticing some injuries on the complainant, recorded a statement from him (Ext P-1) and sent him to the hospital for treatment. He proceeded to investigate the case and finally charged all the six accused under Section 160 I.P.C. for fighting in a public place.3. Two tea shop-keepers P.Ws. 2 and 3 we...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Rubber Works Employees' Union Vs. Industrial Tribunal and O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ478Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. Sri P. Subramonian Potti, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, attacks the award of the Industrial tribunal, Trivandrum, In Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 1959.2. This is rather a curious case, because the dispute, as it now turns out to be, is not really between the management, on the one hand and its workmen, which is generally the case in other industrial disputes; but really between two unions which take in the workmen of its establishment. The union which is the petitioner before me, has been throughout styled in the award as the second anion and the respondent who is opposing its claim, has also been called as the first union. Therefore, for purposes of convenience. I will call the respective unions, in the manner in which they have been characterized in the award itself. The question that was referred for decision, was 'employment in the store section of the Travancore Rubber Works, Trivandrum.' The management appears to have effected certain changes in...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Bhaskar Vs. Advocate General
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker90
Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. S. Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners, attacks the limited manner in which the learned Advocate General has given sanction to institute the suit to the petitioners under Section 92, C. P. C.2. In fairness to the learned counsel, it must be stated that there is no attack whatsoever either against the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the learned Advocate General, nor even against the actual decision, taken by the Advocate General in the circumstances of this case.3. But the main attack, so far as we could gather, is that though the plaintiffs asked for reliefs on various grounds in the draft plaint filed by them and marked as Ext. P in these proceedings, the ultimate sanction given by the Advocate-General, confining the reliefs only to Clauses (A) and (I) practically makes the filing of the suit illusory as not serving any purpose at all.4. According to Mr. S. Easwara Iyer,...
Tag this Judgment!Brilliant Traders Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker132; [1962]13STC176(Ker)
Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these three writ petitions, the respective petitioners challenge the attempt of the Revenue to recover from them amounts on the basis of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act -- Act XI/1125.2. According to the Revenue, notwithstanding the contention raised that the amounts may not have been properly collected by the petitioners from the various parties, nevertheless, in view of the clear provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act there is liability on the part ofthese petitioners to pay over the Government all amounts collected by them, if they are in excess of the tax, if any, paid by them.3. As we mentioned at the beginning of this Judgment, in the main the State relics upon the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125.4. Mr. P. Govindan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in O. P. 866/58 and O. P. 1230/59 and Mr. C. K. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Kadar Vs. Muthukoya Thangal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker138
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this writ petition is as to whether the decree granted by the two subordinate authorities declaring the right of the plaintiff-respondent to enforce his rights to obtain, personal services from the petitioner-defendant is opposed to the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 23 of the Constitution.2. Article 23 is to the following effect;'Right against Exploitation (1) Traffic in human beings and Begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. (2) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on ground only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.' Article 23 occurs under the heading 'Rights against Exploitation in Part III, dealing with Fundamental Rights.3. The question arises in...
Tag this Judgment!Gammon India Private Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC50(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner, Gammon India Private Limited, Bombay, was assessed to sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, in respect of the goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The year concerned is 1955-56.2. The order of assessment by the Sales Tax Officer, Irinjalakuda, was confirmed both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. The Tribunal summed up the facts of the case as follows in its order dated 16th February, 1960:-The turnover assessed relates to a building contract dated 21st February, 1951, entered into by the appellants with M/s. J. & P. Coats Ltd., Glasgow. The total amount of the contract was Rs. 1,52,986-14-6. 70 per cent, of the same, i.e., Rs. 1,07,090-14-6 was treated as the assessable turnover under Rule 4(3) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules. To this was added Rs. 9,710-1-6 representing miscellaneous sales. The appellants were accordingly asse...
Tag this Judgment!Ambi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ426
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Emakulam in Criminal R. P. No. 59 Of I960 on his file.2. The revision petitioner was the counter-petitioner in a miscellaneous case on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Fort Cochin. On the report of the police that a jack tree belonging to the petitioner and standing adjacent to the compound wall of a Convent building is in such a dangerous condition that it is likely to fall and cause injury to the persons living in the neighbourhood the Magistrate made a condition of order Under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code and notice was issued to the counter-petitioner to cut and remove the tree within seven days or to show cause why the order should not be enforced.The counter-petitioner entered appearance and filed a statement to the effect that the tree is not in such a condition as to fall and cause injury to the persons in the neighbourhood and that he bad cut tile over-hanging branches. He added t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »