Kerala Court December 1962 Judgments
The Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Madras-i Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker270
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The decree from which this appeal arises is for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- with interest from the defendant for the loss sustained by the plaintiff in respect of a car Insured with the defendant. The plaintiff was owner of a car registered as T. C. Q. I in the Travancore-Cochin State. It was an Austin 16 H. P. Car. The car was insured with the defendant against loss of damage and a policy was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff covering all accidents from 1-3-1952 to 28-2-1953. The car met with an accident on the night of 21-12-1952 as a result of which it stood in need of repair. The accident was covered by the terms of the Policy and 'therefore the defendant was to repair, reinstate or replace the car or the part thereof and its accessories or pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage not exceeding the actual value of the parts damaged or lost plus a reasonable cost of fitting, such costs not exceeding in any case the estimate of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR593(Ker)
VELU PILLAI J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question referred for decision is : 'Whether the sums of Rs. 7,009 and Pounds 3,341 granted by the assessee to the Employees Deposit and Retirement Fund, constituted as aforesaid, in the years ended March 31, 1946, and March 31, 1948, are deductible under section 14 of the Travancore Income-tax Act in the assessments of 1122 and 1124 M. E. ?' It arises on the following facts :The assessee is a public limited company registered in England which owned tea, rubber and cardamom estates in Travancore and other places. In its books, it had an account entitled Employees Deposit and Retirement Fund, which may be referred to as the Fund, and into which were periodically credited, contributions from the assessee to its employees who are its members, and also from such employees themselves. For the assessment year 1122, M. E., relating to the accounting year ended 31st March, 1946, the assessee cl...
Tag this Judgment!George Oommen Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR977(Ker)
MADHAVAN NAIR J. - The assessee is the same individual in these three references which are under section 60(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (22 of 1950). He owns a pretty large extent of lands under different plantations; but the dispute in these cases concerns his incomes from the Goodhope Estate comprising 180 acres of yielding rubber and 100 acres of immature rubber trees. I.T.R. No. 8 of 1961 relates to the assessment for the year 1955-56, in regard to income derived during the year ended January 31, 1955; and I.T.R. Nos. 13 and 14 to the assessment for the following years 1956-57 and 1957-58 respectively. It is contended that in all these years the assessee had submitted his returns in due time and produced his accounts, being the journal, ledger, check-roll, wages-book, sales-bills and purchase-bills. The yield in the first relevant year was shown in the assessees return as 67,112 lbs. of sheet-rubber, in the next year as 77,982 lbs. and in the third year, when 20 acres mor...
Tag this Judgment!A. Kundappayi Vs. M. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker216
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The 13th defendant is the appellant. This appeal concerns the question whether an application for restitution was barred by law of limitation. The facts are: the plaintiff filed a suit as O. S. 438 of 1948 for recovery of money due under a mortgage bond as also for arrears of rent. The court of first instance passed a decree dismissing the claim for recovery of money due under the bond and directing the plaintiff to pay the costs of the 13th defendant. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. That Court confirmed the decree of the lower Court. Then it was taken to the High Court in Second Appeal. In the meanwhile the 13th defendant executed the first Court's decree for costs and realised the same from the plaintiff. Thereafter the High Court reversed the decree and remanded the case to the lower appellate Court. The petitioner-plaintiff therefore filed an application in the trial Court for restitution i.e., for getting back the amount paid by him by way of...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyappan Nair Kochurunju Nair Vs. Narayani Amma Kunjulekshmi Amma and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker300
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J. 1. The only question raised in this civil revision petition is one of limitation lot a suit instituted by a non-prized subscriber for recovery of his paid up subscriptions in a chitty. The argument of counsel for the petitioner was that the lower Court went wrong in applying Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act and holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. The chitty was registered under the Travancore Chitties Act, and the suit has been filed within six years from the date of the termination of the chitty. Article 116 of the Limitation Act reads as follows :-Descriptionof suit.Periodof limitation.periodbegins to run.116.For compensation for the breach of acontract in writing registered.Sixyears.When theperiod of limitation would begin to run against a suit brought on a similar contract not registered.It is admitted that if Article 116 were to apply the suit was not barred by limitation.2. Therefore the only question for consideration in this petition...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhi Sons, Bombay Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Mattancherr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker178; [1963]14STC304(Ker)
ORDER1. The petitioner purchased the goods concerned in the local market. It is common ground that those purchases will attract the tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, if they were not in the course of inter-State trade or in the course of export from this State. According to the petitioner some of those purchases were in the course of inter-State trade, the others in the course of export from this State, and all of them as a result are exempt from taxation under the Act.2. Under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a sale or purchase of goods should be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; and under Section 5 of the said enactment a sale or purchase of goods should be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India if the sale or purchase occasions such export. It is agreed that we may proceed on the assumption tha...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Renganatha Chettiar, R.M.R. and Co., Trivandrum Vs. the State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker184; [1963]14STC130(Ker)
ORDER1. Section 5(vii) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, provides that the sale of goods specified in column (2) of schedule 1 shall be liable to tax under Section 3 (i) only at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be specified by the Government by notification in the Gazette; and where the taxable point so specified is a point of sale, the seller shall be liable for the tax on the turnover for which the goods are sold by him at such point, and where the taxable point so specified is a point of purchase, the buyer shall be liable for the tax on the turnover for which the goods are bought by him at such point. Cotton yarn, the commodity with which we are concerned, was part of item No. 24 of schedule I.2. By a notification under Section 5(vii) dated 1-4-1958 the Government of Kerala specified the point liable to tax under Section 3(1) in respect of item No. 24 of schedule I as the 'first sale in the State by a dealer who is not exempt from taxation und...
Tag this Judgment!City theatres Private Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC1060(Ker)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition, Mr. P. Subramonian Potti, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of nil assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, I Circle, Trivandrum, dated 20th December, 1961, under exhibit P-3, as well as the order of the same officer cancelling the certificate of registration issued to the petitioner under Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, exhibit P-6 dated 10th January, 1962.2. In one respect this is a rather curious attack that is made as against the order of assessment, because ordinarily the grievance of assessees would be that the order making them liable for payment of tax is arbitrary or illegal or opposed to or in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the order exhibit P-3, which is under attack in these proceedings, holds the petitioner not liable for payment of sales tax for the year 1960-61. Notwithstanding this fact, his learned counsel rather strenuously urged that this vie ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjanam Antony C. Kalliath Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker274
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the first respondent in Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 1959 against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda declining the order of the Collector to produce the valuation statement and report made by the Revenue Inspector in the above case. On summons being received the Collector claimed privilege and the question for decision is whether the protection claimed under Section 124 of the Evidence Act is legally sustain-able. 2. Section 124 of the Evidence Act reads: 'No Public Officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure'.The requirements of the section are, therefore: (1) that a communication should have been made to a public officer in official confidence; (2) that the officer in question must consider that public interests would suffer by the disclosure of the communication. If these two con...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Varkey and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ592
Govinda Menon, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by accused 1 and 2 In Sessions Case 23 of 1962 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Kottayam. The first accused has been convicted Under Section 302 I. P. C, for causing the death of Kesavan Nair, a police constable. He is also convicted of the offences under Sees, 353, 224 and 324 IPC The second accused is found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable Under Section 225 IPC(2) The first accused and three others were accused in C. C. 699/61 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Punalur. The accused had appeared in court and were enlarged on bail. Pws. 1 and 10 had stood surety far them executing surety bonds. As the accused did not appear in court, notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why their bail bonds should not be cancelled. On receipt of the notice they appeared in court and filed n application Ex. P-15 promising to assist the police to effect the arrest of the accused and have them produced iii court and wanted two wee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »