Kerala Court February 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. M. S. Sheik Rowther.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR259(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and referred the following question of law for the decision of the High Court :'Whether the share income of Rs. 15,781 is assessable in the hands of the assessee in the assessment year 1958-59 ?'in accordance with section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee was a partner in the firm of Messrs. T.A. Mohammed & Co., which was constituted under a deed of partnership dated September 27, 1957. The firms accounts were closed on the 30th of April, 1958. The assessees share of the income from the firm during that period amounted to Rs. 15,781. The assessee had other sources of income and has been following the period 1st April to the following 31st March as the period of his 'previous year' and so for the assessment year 1958-59, his accounting period ended on the 31st of March, 1958.The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner felt compelled to include the sum of Rs. 15,781...
Thandamma and ors. Vs. Kuriakose Putherickal Iype
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker235
Govindan Nair, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal relates to the applicability of the Cochin Agriculturists' Relief Act, (XVIII) of 1114, hereinafter referred to as the Cochin Act, and/or the applicability of the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956 (Act III of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the T. C. Act 1936, for fixing the amounts due from the appellants to the respondent. The main contention raised before the court below, and repeated before us, is that notwithstanding the provision in the overdraft agreement that appellants 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) had' entered into with the respondent -- the plaintiff Bank -- that interest accrued due and outstanding at the end of each quarter must be added to the principal, all such amounts added to the principal must be treated only as interest in calculating the amounts due under Section 14 of the Cochin Act. It was therefore urged that by the payment of Rs. 20,500/- on 1-1-1954 the debt due to the ...
Moossa Haji and ors. Vs. Bee Pathu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker53
1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in E. P. No. 169 of 1956 in O. S. No. 91 of 1946. The only question for decision is whether the execution petition, is barred by limitation.2. It is common ground that it is within time, If E. P. No. 54 of 1950 can be considered as a step-in-aid or execution, and that, it is not, if that petition cannot be so considered.(3) The decree in O. S. No. 91 of 1946 directed that: 'The 1st defendant as Karavan of the tarwad and out of the tarwad properties do pay plaintiffs Rs. 6,955-0-0 with interest thereon at six per cent, per annum from the date of suit, viz., 15-10-1946, to the date of realisation'; and that:'The 1st defendant personally do pay plaintiffs Rs. 901-14-0 being costs of suit with interest thereon at six per cent. per annum from this date (10-3-1949) to the date of realization'.E. P. No. 54 of 1950 was only for the realization of the costs decreed personally against the 1st defendant.4. The prayer in. ...
Kochukunju Padmanabhan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker3
ORDER1. The plaintiff in L.A.R. No. 48 of 1957 or the District Court of Quilon is the petitioner before us. The award concerned was made on 14-2-1953.2. The reference was dismissed by the District Judge on the ground that it was made after the expiry of the period of two months prescribed by proviso (b) to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089. The question for determination is whether he had the jurisdiction to do so.3. The period prescribed in proviso (b) to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the (Indian) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is six weeks, and not two months as provided in proviso (b) to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089. There are some other differences also in the wording of the two sections; but as far as the question of jurisdiction arising before us is concerned, they can be considered as identical.4. The petition for reference itself discloses, quite clearly, that it was filed beyond the period p...
Papavinasom Subrahmoniam Vs. Daivani Nagaramma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker26
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellant is the 3rd defendant in a suit to set aside the decrees in O. S. No. 81 of 1100 on the file of the District Court, Nagereoil, and O. S. No. 17 of 1101 on the file of the District Court, Trivandrum, as also the execution proceedings had thereon as (sic) been affected by fraud and for recovery of the plaint property with mesne profits.(2) The facts are as follows :The 2nd defendant was the foreman of a chitty started in 1096 in which the 1st defendant's father was a suts-criber who prized his ticket and executed the bond, Ext. C, mortgaging the plaint property to secure due payment of future subscriptions. For amounts due to the plaintiff by the foreman, he assigned the said bond to her in 1098 (Vide Exts. E and F dated 11-11-1098 and 7-12-1098). The 3rd defendant, professing to be a subscriber in the abovesaid chitty, instituted O. S. No. 81 of 1100 on the file of the District Court, Nagereoil, for paid up subscriptions, and in execution of the decre...
P.M. Meerannan Kutty Vs. Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker290
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. Though there is a lot of suspicion as against the petitioner, still unfortunately It so happens that the petitioner is to succeed for the present on a highly technical point.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KLK. 4015 and according to him the said vehicle was checked by the second respondent on 3-11-1961 at Tripunithura. It Is the case of the petitioner that at that time a business partner of his, namely, Shri T. M. Ebrahim Karim, and a relation of his, namely, Shri Alikutty, were travelling in that vehicle as they were expected to use the vehicle in the ordinary manner. But the said vehicle, as I mentioned earlier, was checked by the second respondent and he issued a check report Ex. P-l to the driver of the vehicle to the effect that when the vehicle was stopped and checked the irreguparities noted therein were observed by him and the Irregularity itself is that the car was found conveying Sort T. M. Ebra...
Pathanamthitta Majilissae Islamia Vs. Nagoor Meeran Sheik Muhammad and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker49
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit between two sects of the Muslim community of Pathanamthitta, The plaintiff as the secretary and representative of the Majilissae Islamia Association, Pathanamthitta, prays for a declaration that the annual religious festival, known as 'Chandanakudam' conducted by the defendants on the suit property on which a mosque is situated is against the tenets of Islam and for an injunction restraining the defendants as representatives of the community in the locality from conducting it any further. It is averred in the plaint that the Association represented by the plaintiff has 218 votaries and they constitute the majority of the Muslims of the locality. 2. Originally, there were only 11 defendants, but in response to a notification under Rule 8 of Order 1, C. P. C. 309 Muslims came forward to get themselves impleaded as additional defendants in the cause, denying the right of the plaintiff's Association to represent the majority of t...
Scaria Korah of Thayil Vs. Koran Mathu of Thayil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker323
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. These two appeals are by the plaintiff in O. S. Nos. 15 of 1951 and 150 of 1123 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kottayam. The properties involved in the two suits along with several others belonged to one Koran. He executed a Will on 13-7-1113, evidenced by Ext. 1, and died on 16-7-1113 M. E. He left behind him his widow Aley, two sons the defendants 1 and 2, and a grand-son, the plaintiff, by a predeceased son. The Will contained two schedules of properties, A and B. The material provisions in the Will are as follow:'.....The entire movable and immovable properties, the trade and everything that remains to be realised, that belong to me at my death, excluding only those that are specified in the schedules A and B herein-under shall be taken by Mathu (1st defendant) and George (2nd defendant) who are now alive among my sons. .... My debts now subsisting and coming to be in future, shall be discharged by the abovesaid Mathu and George jointly and without charging my...
Krishna Kurup Sankara Kurup Vs. Mathew Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker30
1. This appeal is from an order of the District Judge of Alleppey allowing the first defendant in O. S. No. 202 of 1953 to discharge the debt covered by the decree in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala-Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act (31 of 1958). The decree which was for recovery of money due under a simple mortgage was passed on 12-8-1954 on the basis of a compromise petition. The right of the first defendant to obtain relief under Act 31 of 1958 was not disputed and the controversy was about the manner in which the debt was to be scaled down. The learned District Judge accepted the method of computation adopted by the first defendant, and the decree-holder has therefore preferred this appeal. The Division Bench which heard the appeat referred the case to a Full Bench for an authoritative decision. 2. The only point now in dispute is whether the amount adjudged by the decree is to be treated as 'principal' for the purpose of ascertaining the balance of the debt payable unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›