Kerala Court January 1962 Judgments
Ettuthara Warrier Vs. C. Kochunarayana Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker265
ORDER1. The plaintiff in S. C. No. 66 Of 1958 of the Munsiff's Court of Irinjalakuda is the petitioner before us. That court refused to evaluate the evidence in the light of Ext. P-1 on the ground that it was not duly stamped and dismissed the suit without taking it into consideration.2. It is common ground that Ex1. P-1 should have been stamped as a promissory note and that it is defective on that account. The Only contention of the petitioner is that the instrument having been admitted in evidence its admissibility cannot be challenged at a later stage.3. The instrument was proved and marked when the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 on 11-6-1959. It was also used in the cross-examination of the respondent when he gave evidence as D.W. 1 on the same date. The admissibility was questioned for the first time Only by I. A. No. 1831 of 1959, a petition filed by the respondent on 20-6-1959.4. The contention of the petitioner is based on Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act, 1125,...
Tag this Judgment!City Corporation of Trivandrum Vs. A. Antony, Secretary Milk Supplies ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ124
P. Govinda Menon J.1. This is an appeal by the City Corporation of Trivandrum against the order of the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum acquitting respondents 1 and 2 of the offence under Section 17 (I) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Act 37 of 1954.2. On 29-1-60 the 2nd respondent brought fo sale buffalo milk at the Puthenchantha Co-operative Milk Supplies Union. Pw, 1 the Food Inspector of the Corporation purchased 24 Oz., of milk, after informing him that it was for sampling. Ex. P-i is the voucher for the purchase. It was duly sampled and one part of the sample was sent to tie Public Analyst. His report Ex. P-4 showed that the sample contained not less than 7 per cent of added water. On the basis of this report the 2nd respondent who had actually sold the milk and the 1st respondent who is the Secretary of the Peyad Milk Co-operative Society who had sent the milk for sale were prosecuted.3. Section 7 prohibits the sale of any adulterat...
Tag this Judgment!V. Padmanabha Ravivarma Rajah and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker31
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these eleven writ petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is as to whether the levy of land cess under the provisions of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, Madras Act 14 of 1920, as amended by the Madras District Boards (Amendment) Act, 1957, Kerala Act 4 of 1958, is valid and could be sustained.2. There are also, no doubt, some special points raised in some of these writ petitions; and I will advert to them, after I consider the main grounds of attack that have been made regarding the validity of Kerala Act 4 of 1958. According to- the petitioners, the levy of land cess at a uniform rate, irrespective of the quality of the lands, is 'illegal, discriminatory and void and therefore, Kerala Act 4 of 1958 is an invalid piece of legislation. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, has sustained the levy under the Act, in question, as a levy which is within the competence of the State Legislature a...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarakadas Leeladhar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR619(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward his share of the aforesaid loss of Rs. 90,828 in the erstwhile registered firm against the profits from his sole business for the assessment year 1957-58 ?'The assessee, Dwarakadas, was one of the two partners of a registered firm carrying on business in hessian, cloth and jute products. The partnership was dissolved on June 1, 1953. It is common ground that, after the dissolution, the assessee contain used the same business as it sole proprietor.The partnership was working at a loss. The share of the assessee in the loss sustained by the firm as determined under section 16(1) (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was Rs. 76,097 for the assessment year 1953-54 and Rs. 14,731 for the assessment year 1954-55. It is the total of these two figures that is mentioned in the question referred by the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramanatha Shenoy and Co. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC231(Ker)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these three writ petitions, Mr. V. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the orders of assessment to sales tax made by the respective Sales Tax Officers.2. Though the petitioners in each of these writ petitions are different, these writ petitions have been heard together, because common questions of law have been raised by Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioners.3. The common questions of law that arise for decision in all these writ petitions are:(1) The legality of the levy of surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, XI of 1957, and(2) Whether transactions in 'maida' are exempt from payment of sales tax under Section 5, Clause (vi), of the General tJales Tax Act.4. There is also a special question that arises for decision in O. P. No. 1585 of 1960, as to whether the order of assessment therein suffers from the infirmity of being arbitrary and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.5. I may at t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›