Kerala Court November 1962 Judgments
P. Koru Vs. Standard Tile and Clay Works (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker324
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. M. M. Abdulkhader, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the arbitration award passed by Sri V. U. Joseph, Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, to whom the dispute was referred by agreement of parties under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no controversy that the procedure and the various formalities indicated under Section 10A of the Act were amply complied with and ultimately the State Government has published the award under Section 17 of the Act. 2. The petitioner, Union, challenges the arbitration award on the ground that the decision rendered by the arbitrator on the two main questions that were referred to him for adjudication is erroneous and illegal. 3. The question that was referred to the arbitration of Mr. V. U. Joseph related to the claim of the piece-rated workers for additional bonus for the year ending 31-12-1959 to be paid on the total wages that they were getting at the material time. The...
Tag this Judgment!C. D. Lonappan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR708(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The question that has been referred to this court reads :'Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in disallowing a part of the bonus paid to the employees ?'In the year of account ending on March 31, 1956, the assessee made a profit of Rs. 91,812 on his grocery business. He paid Rs. 10,125 towards bonus that year to his 34 employees in this business. They had been paid during that year Rs. 16,000 and odd as salary and the whole of this amount has been allowed as a deduction for computing the income. But the taxing authorities felt that Rs. 10,125 paid as bonus was not reasonable. Rs. 10,125 works out to about 7 1/2 months salary. They reduced the bonus to be months salary.The questions to be considered are stated in the proviso to section 10(2) (x) of the Indian Income-tax Act and they are :(a) the pay of the employee and the conditions of his service,(b) the profits of the business of the year, and(c) the general practice in similar businesses.The average sal...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR123(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The facts of this reference under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are stated in detail in the statement of the case and the questions that have been referred to us are :'(I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the removal of Rs. 18,000 by one of the employees of the bank was only theft or constituted embezzlement ?(2) Whether the embezzlement by one who had been in joint charge, but was acting singly in the matter of embezzlement, made any difference for the purposes of income-tax (3) Whether such loss is incidental to the business ?'The facts which have been admitted and necessary for answering the above questions are these : The employee concerned, one Ittikkuru, was the agent of the Thathamangalam branch of the assessee bank in early 1950. Because certain irregularities on his part were noticed by the board of directors, one Francis was appointed by the directors as accountant of that branch and the safe keys were entrusted,...
Tag this Judgment!Malayalam Plantations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR186(Ker)
M.S. Menon C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference relates to the assessment years 1122 M.E. and 1124 M.E. The accounting periods concerned are the twelve months ended on March 31, 1946, and March 31, 1948, respectively.The question referred i :'Whether the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs and Rs. 4,11,500 are assessable as remittances of foreign profits under section 4(1)(a) of the Travancore Act for the assessment years, 1122 M.E. and 1124 M.E.?'The question does not pose the whole of the controversy. It is common ground that we should consider the impact of section 4(1)(b)(iii) as well. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated in England and having its registered office in London. It was 'resident and ordinarily resident' in the State of Travancore.The assessee owns tea, rubber and cardamom estates; 11 of its 32 estates were in British India.The agents and secretaries of the ...
Tag this Judgment!issac Samuel Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker124; 1964CriLJ405
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Sub Magistrate of Nedumangad under Section 517 Cr. P. C., directing that the cost of areca nuts remaining in Court custody be given to P. W. 1 the complainant in the case. The matter was taken up before the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum who has confirmed the order. 2. The accused is the Superintendent of the River View Estate of which D. W. 1 is the managing director. P. W. 1 claims to have obtained a lease of the areca trees in the estate. His case is that his agent P. W. 2 had collected the nuts on 6-2-1961 and entrusted the same to the accused for safe custody and when asked for it the next day he failed to return the same, information was given to the police and a case was registered. The areca nuts were taken into custody from the estate car shed and produced in Court. It was sold and the sale proceeds are in court. 3. The accused denied the commission of the offence and examined the man...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. V.T. John, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ216
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. Criminal Appeal 333 of 1961 is filed by the State against the Judgment of the District Magistrate of Quilon acquitting the respondent who was charged for offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. Criminal Revision Petition 297 of 1961 is filed by P. W. 3, the complainant for setting aside the order of acquittal. As these have been heard together and arise out of the same judgment, a common order is passed.2. P. W, 3, Kuttappan Nair is the proprietor of Krishnan Nair's Watch Company, Emakulam. The respondent was the Manager of the Quilon branch. Several types of watches, clocks, time-pieces, etc., used to be entrusted to the respondent for sale. The head office at Emakulam maintains the stock register in respect of each of the articles so entrusted. Ext. P-4 is the stock register. Stocks were made over to the branch under transfer notes duly acknowledged by the Manager. There is no di...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Abdu, Manager C.M.S. Pottichira School, Oorakam Village and ors. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker248
P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. 'I entertain no doubt on thelaw or justice of this case' said Best, C. J., inBeeston v. Collyer, (1827) 4 Bing 309, the Courtof Common Pleas, a case in which the facts weresimilar to those here. I too entertain nodoubt regarding the law or justice of this case.But it is urged- by counsel for the appellant thatthe view that an employee like the plaintiff, aschool teacher, is entitled to an year's notice isopen to question. I must, therefore, consider thiscontention. 2. The appellant is the manager' of a school called D. M. S. Pottichira and the respondent, the plaintiff, was associated with the school from 28-11-1122, though there was a break between 17-8-1123 and 6-2-1125. She was dismissed from service on the 30th of March, 1950, and it has bean concurrently found by the Courts below that this dismissal is unwarranted. The Courts below have held that at least one year's notice should have been given to the plaintiff and have awarded compensation on, that basis....
Tag this Judgment!Abdu Vs. Appassi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ209Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. I entertain no doubt on the law or justice of this case' said Bast, O.J., in Beeston v. Collyer 4 Blng. 309, the Court of Common Pleas, a case in which the facts were similar to that here. I too entertain no doubt regarding the law or justice of this case. But It is urged by counsel for the appellant that the view that an employee like the plaintiff, a school teacher, is entitled to a year's notice is open to question. I must, therefore, consider this contention.2. The appellant is the manager of a school called D.M.S., Pottiohira, and the respondent, the plaintiff, was associated with the school from 28 Mithunam 1122 though there was a break between 17 Meenom 1123 and 6 Kanni 1125. She was dismissed from service on 80 March 1950 and it has been concurrently found by the Courts below that this dismissal is unwarranted. The Courts below have held that at least one year's notice should have been given to the plaintiff and have awarded compensation on that basis.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Devaswom Board, Trivandrum Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker250; (1963)IILLJ218Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether the view of the Industrial Tribunal, expressed in Ex. P-I, that the Maramath Department of the Tra-vancore Devaswom Board is an 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Central Act 14 of 1947, is correct or not. The expression 'industry' is defined under Section '2(j) as:' 'industry' means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen''.In view of certain disputes that arose between the Travancore Devaswom Board and the workmen of the said Board in the Davaswom Maramath Work establishment, the State Government referred that dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, The various matters referred for adjudication by the . Industrial Tribunal have been mentioned in the award, Ex. P-I. They related to ...
Tag this Judgment!Meghji Malsee Ltd. Vs. P.C. Oommen of Pulivelil Kizhakkethil House and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker306
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The plaintiff sued for the amount of two cheques, one for Rs. 2727/- dated the 7th November, 1955, and the other for Rs. 2657-12 as. dated the 12th November, 1955, drawn in his favour by the first defendant on the 3rd defendant, the Bank pf Deccan Ltd., Mannar branch. The plaintiff entrusted them for collection with the Union Bank of India, Cochin, which forwarded them through the Travancore Bank to the Bank of Deccan, Kottayam, which is the 3rd defendant's head office and which may be referred to hereafter as the head office. It was common ground that the head office transmitted the cheques by post under certificate of posting to the third defendant. It is the case of the 3rd defendant firstly, that it had no funds of the first defendant to honour the cheques and secondly, that when the envelopes were opened at Mannar the cheques were found missing, having been abstracted while in transit. Some correspondence ensued between the concerned banks, but the cheques we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »