Kerala Court August 1961 Judgments
Parvathi Amma Vs. Makki Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker85
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. These appeals have been referred to a Full Bench because of a common question arising in them viz., whether owelty is a debt within the purview of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958. 2. 'Owelty' is defined in Black's 'Law Dictionary' (2nd Edn., page 865) thus : 'Owelty. Equality. This word is used in law in several compound phrases, as follows: 1. Owelty of partition is a sum of money paid by one of two coparceners or cotenants to the other, when a partition has been effected between them, but the land not being susceptible of division into exactly equal shares, such payment is required to make the portions respectively assigned to them of equal value. 2. (Owelty of services) ............... 3. Owelty of exchange is a sum of money given, when two persons have exchanged lands, by the owner of the less valuable estate to the owner of the more valuable, to equalize the exchange.' Ballentirie's ''Law Dictionary' (1948 Edn., page 923) defines : 'Owelty of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Panicker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC170(Ker)
Vaidialingam, J.1. In these three writ petitions Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the respective petitioners, challenges the order of the respective Sales Tax Officer, issuing notices to the concerned petitioners on the basis of the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 16A of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (Act XI of 1125).2. The contention that is raised before us in all these writ petitions by the learned counsel is that before taking action for confiscation of the goods, no opportunity of being heard has been given to the concerned petitioners, nor has an enquiry in the manner prescribed been conducted as is mandatory under the proviso to Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 16A of the Act.3. Before we go to the scheme of Section 16A, as well as the proviso, we will refer to the facts in these individual writ petitions. In O. P. 1094 of 1959, the petitioner seeks to have the notice, exhibit P 1 dated nth September, 1959, issued by the Sales Tax Officer quashed. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ745Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act (Central Act XIX of 1952), will apply to an establishment, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a reduction in the number of employees in the said concern.2. Before we consider the legal contentions that have been raised by Sri T.N. Subramonia Ayyar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, It is desirable to state a few facts.3. So far as O.P. No. 1362 of 1959 Is concerned, the petitioner which is a rubber estate, seeks to have two orders quashed, namely, Exs. A and B, dated 15 April 1959 and 8 October 1959, respectively. Under Ex. A, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum, declines to grant the exemption asked for by the petitioner from the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, on the ground that there has been a partit...
Tag this Judgment!M.T. Joseph and ors. Vs. Gift Tax Officers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker97
Vaidialingam, J. 1. The common question that arises for decision in all these 4 original petitions is regarding the competency of Parliament to enact the the Gift Tax Act, 1958. viz., Central Act 18 of 1958, levying tax on gifts of agricultural land. In O. P. Nos. 323 of 1959, 1339 of 1959 and 117 of 1960, the respective, petitioners seek the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respective Gift Tax Officers from enforcing the provisions of the Gift Tax Act, in respect of certain gifts of agricultural land admittedly made bythem. In O. P. No. 131 of 1961 there has been an actual order of assessment passed against the petitioner levying gift tax by the Gift Tax Officer concerned, and the relief asked for is to have the order of assessment quashed. The petitioners have not challenged the competency of Parliament to levy gift tax in respect of properties, movable or immovable, other than agricultural lands. 2. According to the petitioner in each of these writ petitions, the schem...
Tag this Judgment!Subramonia Iyer Vs. Janardhanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker297
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The short question for decision in this Second Appeal is, whether in proceedings' under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant, decree-holder, who had withdrawn a certain sum of money deposited in Court by the respondent-judgment-debtor, pursuant to a decree which had afterwards been modified, is not liable also for interest thereon in making restitution. It was contended for the appellant, that no claim for Interest can be made against him, being outside the provisions of the Interest Act. In my view, the claim is well founded and falls squarely within the terms of Section 144, Civil ProcedureCode, the relevant part of which reads:--'and, for this purpose, the Court may make any order,including orders.....for the payment of interest......which are properly consequential on such variation or reversal.'This power is untrammelled by anything in the Interest Act, being founded upon a wholly different principle, that, it is one of the highest duties of ...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Gift-tax Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR66(Ker)
VAIDIALINGAM J. - The common question that arises for decision in all these four original petitions is regarding the competency of Parliament to enact the Gift-tax Act, 1958, viz., Central Act 18 of 1958, levying tax on gifts of agricultural land. In O. P. Nos. 323 of 1959, 1339 of 1959 and 117 of 1960, the respective petitioners seek the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respective Gift-tax Officers from enforcing the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, in respect of certain gifts of agricultural land admittedly made by them. In O. P. No. 131 of 1961, there has been an actual order of assessment passed against the petitioner, levying gift-tax, by the Gift-tax Officer concerned, and the relief asked for is to have the order of assessment quashed. The petitioners have not challenged the competency of Parliament to levy gift-tax in respect of properties, movable or immovable, other than agricultural lands.According to the petitioner, in each of these writ petitions, the scheme o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR184(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - This reference has been made on the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, herein referred to as the Act. The assessee has been doing business in Malabar produce, cloth, etc., in Kozhikode and had for the assessment year 1945-46 submitted a return, showing Rs. 7,960 as losses. The assessment on him for the aforesaid year was, however, concluded on a total income of Rs. 8,009. Seven years later the Income-tax Officer obtained information regarding large deposits having been made in the assessees name in the Abdul Rehman Branch of the Central Bank of India Ltd., in Bombay, and thereupon issued on March 18, 1954, the notice under section 34 of the Act. It was served on the assessees son on March 22, 1954, and the Income-tax Officer, treating the service insufficient, issued another notice, which was affixed in the business premises of the assessee, because he was said to be then in Bombay or Ceylon. Subsequently, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. George Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1961
Reported in: [1961]12STC807(Ker)
P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raises the question whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which was one for a declaration that the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, assessing the appellant to sales tax is illegal, ultra vires and made without jurisdiction and for a perpetual injunction restraining the State from enforcing the said order of assessment.2. One of the defences raised by the State was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Munsiff relying on Section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act (Act IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge of Kozhikode also held that if the initiation of the proceedings in the case was before the enactment of Section 18-A of the Act, the suit would be maintainable, but if the initiation of proceedings was subsequent to the enactment of Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Arumughom Chettiar Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ154
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed by the same accused who has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention, of Food Adulteration Act - Act 37 of 1954.2. Pw. 1 the Sanitary Inspector of Mattancherry Municipality purchased from the accused 24 oz., of buffalo milk on two dates 12.9.58 and 9.3.59 when the milk was being taken by the accused to the Madras Cafe for sale. On analysis the milk was found to be adulterated. In both the cases the accused contended that he was only a paid servant of Kuppuswamy Chettiar, his brother and examined witnesses to prove his case. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the defence evidence and found that the accused was a milk vendor and as such was guilty of the offence charged against him. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge also accepted the prosecution evidence and confirmed the conviction and sentence.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Malayali Printing and Publishing Company (Private) L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker240; [1962(4)FLR44]; (1962)IILLJ89Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition Mr. G. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, attacks the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in J. P. 39/1959 relating to the question of payment of bonus by the petitioner concern.2. The main attack that is made by the learned counsel is that the only case or the basis on which bonus was claimed in this case was on the ground that there is a custom in this concern to pay bonus and the Tribunal has ultimately, accepted the case of the Union that there is such a custom to pay bonus representing one month's salary every year irrespective of profit or loss. Mr. G. Vishwanatha Ayyar urges that the various types of bonus have been considered by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has held that there cannot be a claim based upon payment of custo-mary bonus unconnected with any pooja or testival. In this case, the learned counsel urges the no such claim was ever advanced, nor the parties were in controversy on such a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »