Kerala Court October 1962 Judgments
Palai Central Bank Ltd., (In Liquidation) Vs. Jacob P. Cherian and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker128; [1963]33CompCas144(Ker)
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. Nine hundred and twenty five claims brought under Section 45D of the Banking Companies Act have been heard together on the common question whether the respondent debtors, whose borrowings from the banking company in liquidation were against their deposits with it, are entitled to set off the one against the other under Section 529 of the Companies Act read with Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the company being un-disputedly an Insolvent company. (Actually the insolvency law in force in this State is the (Kerala) insolvency Act, 1955 Section 47 of which corresponds to Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. However the previsions of this Act are, for all material purposes, identical with those of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and it is more convenient to refer to the provisions of the latter Act.) Four of them, B. C. C. No. 194 of 1961, B. C. C. No. 408 of 1961, B. C. C. No. 1003 of 1961 and B. C. C. No. 1105 of 1961, have been chosen, more...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Raghavan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC483(Ker)
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal is by the State against a decree setting aside an order of assessment of sales tax. In the period from 17th August, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, the plaintiff, a dealer in tobacco at Quilon, had collected Rs. 9,041-13-9 as sales tax from his customers. The Sales Tax Authorities reckoned the tax so collected as part of his turnover and assessed tax thereon amounting to Rs. 2,201-8-1. In this suit, the plaintiff pleaded that the tax collected by him for remittance to the State could not be part of his turnover and therefore was not assessable to tax. The State, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order of assessment, contended that 'the sales tax collected with the sale value formed part of the turnover which is the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold by a dealer.' The Additional District Judge, following a ruling of the Travancore-Cochin High Court reported in Velayudhan v. Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer, A.I....
Tag this Judgment!T.J. George S/O Thattil Joseph Vs. Mrs. Lucy Kochuvareed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker188
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The 16th counter-petitioner, in a proceeding initiated before the District Court, Trichur, by the respondent herein for the grant of a probate of a registered will dated 2-9-1958 said to have been executed by her late husband, T. V. Kochuvareed, is the appellant. The appellant, by means of an application dated 13th of August 1962, contended before the lower Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for probate because properties worth more than Rs. 10,000/- belonging to the estate of the deceased were situate outside the State of Kerala. It is admitted that item No. 3 of the A schedule to the Probate application is situate in the State of Madras and that the value of that Item is over Rs. 10,000/-. The contention that was urged before the Court below was that in view of the proviso to Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the District Court was incompetent to issue a probate in this case ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Ceramics Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1962
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT453(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. It is the common case the determination of the value of the articles maufactured by the petitioner for the purpose of levying duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is to be made under Section 4(a) of the Act on the basis of the wholesale cash price at which the petitioner himself sells his wares at his factory, there bsing apparently no other wholesale sales of similar wares for determining the wholesale cash price for which like articles are sold or are capable of being sold. The petitioner's case is that he makes wolesale sales only to his sole agents Messrs. Bawa Agencies (Private) Ltd. and that he has allowed them a trade discount of 19 1/4% which, under the Explanation to Section 4, should be deducted from the gross price in determining the wholesale price. In refusing to make this deduction, the 1st respondent assessing authority depended on the circumstance that there were sales by the petitioner to persons other than Messrs. Bawa Agencies in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Amma Ratnamma Vs. Narayana Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker246
1. This second appeal by the defendant from an order made in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) Civil P. C., does not lie. The appellant has however made the application, C. M. P. No. 7380 of 1962, to convert the second appeal into a civil revision petition. But I see no purpose in allowing the conversion since it seems to me that there is no case for interference in revision. The lower appellate Court found on the evidence that the promissory note on which the suit was based was executed at Edapalli within the jurisdiction of the Parur Court where the suit was brought; and that was enough to give that Court jurisdiction to try the suit. That finding is a legitimate inference from the circumstance that the address of both parties as given in the promissory note is in Edapalli and that a Travancore stamp was affixed. Whereas, if as contended by the appellant, the execution was in what was then British Malabar--the promissory note is of the date 6-10-1944 -- a British Indian stamp ought...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. M. Velayudhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC382(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This appeal is by the 1st defendant State Government against whom a decree has been made restraining it from taking any proceedings to recover the tax assessed on the plaintiff under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (for short, the Act) on the purchase of copra made by him from 18th November, 1952, to 31st March, 1953, the turnover in question amounting to Rs. 42,449-11-9. For the rest, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed and the plaintiff has not chosen to appeal.2. Section 6 of the Act runs as follows :-6. (1) Power of Government to notify exemption and reduction of tax.-Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make an exemption, or reduction in rate, in respect of any tax payable under this Act-(i) on the sale of any specified class of goods at all points or at any specified point or points in the series of sales by successive dealers ; or(ii) by any specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover.(2) Any exemption fr...
Tag this Judgment!Thanuvan Velayudhan Vs. Velayudhan Mudaliar Appavu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker234
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. In this case the advocate on record of the petitioner has not appeared, nor has anybody else appeared on his behalf. Being a Civil Revision Petition on a question of law, I do not think it is proper to dismiss the case for default. Moreover, when I look into the judgment, I feel that the judgment is also not correct. Therefore, I propose to dispose of the case on merits.2. Two questions arise for consideration in the case. One is whether the foreman of a chit fund can claim a period of limitation of six years in a suit against a prized subscriber for arrears of defaulted subscription, on the ground that the variola of the chit is registered. The next question is whether Article 75 of the Limitation Act applies to the case.3. On the first question Mr. S. A. Nagendran the learned advocate of the respondents, has brought to my notice two decisions, one of this Court and the other of the Travancore High Court. The decision of the Travancore High Court laid down in ...
Tag this Judgment!Piramu Chellamma of Kuzhivilakathu Veedu Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker247
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 3rd defendant, who is one of the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, has preferred this appeal against the decree allowing return of the advance paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant under a contract for sale which was not carried out. Ext. P-I is the contract for sale dated 29-3-1123 in which the 1st defendant undertook to discharge a mortgage then subsisting on the property and to convey the property free of encumbrance within a month of the contract. Ext. D-2 is a notice dated 22-4-1123 issued by the 1st defendant after redeeming the aforesaid mortgage on 13-4-1123. The endorsement of service by the postman shows that it was refused by the plaintiff. However, on 10-5-1123 the plaintiff in his torn issued a notice to the 1st defendant demanding specific performance of the contract. But no reply thereto was given by the 1st defendant. Parties seem to have remained quiet till 11-9-1124 when the 1st defendant executed a mortgage (Ext. P-3) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Padmanabha Ravi Varma Raja and ors. Vs. the Deputy Tahsildar Chittu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker155
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these writ petitions, though the petitioners are different, the various provisions in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, Act 13 of 1961, are attacked on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.2. The exact grounds of attach raised by the petitioners wilt be adverted to later; but the background for the passing of the Act, which is under severe attack in these proceedings may be briefly indicated.3. Prior to the formation of the Kerala State on 1-11-1955, the Travancore-Cochin legislature had passed the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, Act XV of 1955, purporting to provide for the levy of a low and uniform rate of basic tax on all lands in the State of Travancore-Cochin. That Act came into force on 1st day or April 1956, in accordance with the Notification issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government, under Section 1(3) of the said Act. Broadly, the Act purported to provide tor lev...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn State Power and Light Corporation Ltd., Ernakulam Vs. State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker286
Raman Nayar, J.1. The short question is whether the proposed acquisition of the electric supply undertaking of the appellant company by the respondent State Government in pursuance of its notice Ext. G, dated 20th November 1959, is authorised by Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Our learned brother, Vaidialingam, J., has held that it is and has dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ or order quashing the notice and forbidding the acquisition. Hence this appeal. I might add that the validity of the section is not questioned; only its application is.2. The statutory provisions that fall for consideration are Section 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as it stood before amendment by Act 32 of 1959, the unamended Act for short, and Section 6 of that Act after the amendment, the amended Act, as I shall call it.3. Section 7 of the unamended Act runs-thus :'7. Purchase of undertakings -- (i) Where a license has been gra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »