Kerala Court March 1962 Judgments
R. Natarajan Ramalingom Chettiar Vs. Parasuram Parumal and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker13
Joseph, J.1. These appeals ar& from the decrees in O. S. Nos. 231 of 1951 and 92 of 1952 respectively of the District Court of Anjikaimal. R, Natarajan, the appellant in both the cases, has the plaintiff in O. S. No. 231 and the defendant in O. S. No. 92. The respondent in both the appeals is Para-suram Perumal, a partner of a firm carrying on business at Bombay. The parties will be referred to as appellant and respondent in this judgment.2. The transaction which gave rise to the two suits was a contract for sale of 1000 bags of sugar to be sold by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant had paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance towards the price. Each party alleged that the other had committed breach. The appellant sued for recovery of the sum of Rs. 10,000/- paid by him while the respondent's suit was for recovery of damages, the amount claimed being the difference between the contract price and the price fetched by sale of the sugar after the appellant refused to take delivery of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghava Menon Son of Kasturi Narayani Amma Vs. Kuttappan Nair, Proprie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker318
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The plaintiff in S. C. S. No. 157 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Munsif of Trichur questions in this Civil Revision Petition the correctness of the dismissal of his suit by the learned Munsif. The facts that led to the suit may be briefly noted.2. The plaintiff purchased a Kenson Dayter Wrist-watch from the Trichur branch of the defendant-Company on 10th August 1957 for Rs. 172.64 nP. and also a chain for Rs. 11.22 nP. Along with the watch the Company issued the guarantee certificate Ext. P3. Within about three weeks the plaintiff found that the watch was not working properly and therefore he handed over the watch at the Trichur branch of the defendant-Company. It was kept there for a few days and was returned to the plaintiff. A few days thereafter it was taken by the plaintiff to the Head office of the defendant-Company at Ernakulam and was handed over to the Head-office. After several days the plaintiff got back the watch through the Trichur branch ...
Tag this Judgment!M. O. Thomakutty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR872(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, acting under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, has drawn up a statement of the case and has referred the following questions to this court :'1. Whether the provisions of section 34 have been properly invoked ?2. Whether the notice has been served and reassessment made in time ?'The Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, made a best judgment assessment for the year 1948-49 on February 26, 1949, under the Indian income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), estimating the taxable income of the assessee as well as his foreign income for the purpose of fixing the rate of tax. The assessee himself had only estimated his foreign income arising from the former Cochin State and mentioned the estimated figure of Rs. 40,000 in his return. The officer did not accept that estimate and said :'I shall provisionally adopt Rs. 50,000 subject to revision later on production of the Cochin State assessment orders.'During the investigati...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthapadmanabha Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Tr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR339(Ker)
These are references by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, under section 60(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The assessee and the questions referred are the same in all the three cases. Only the assessment years are different. The assessment year concerned in Reference No. 6 of 1960 is 1952-53, the assessment year concerned in Reference No. 7 of 1960 is 1953-54, and the assessment year concerned in Reference No. 8 of 1960 is 1955-56.2. The question referred are :'1. Whether the lands in question can be said to be karamozhivu or tax-free lands in view of the fact that quit rent and royalty are payable in respect of the lands under the settlement patta ?''2. If the lands in question are to be regarded as tax-free lands whether the agricultural income derived from such lands should be excluded in computing the total agricultural income of a person under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1959 ?'The Travancore-Cochin Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. CochIn Company.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR310(Ker)
RAMAN NAYAR J. - The question of law referred to us by the Tribunal is :'Whether the aforesaid machines are new so as to entitle the assessees to initial and extra depreciations under section 10(2) (vi) and 10(2) (via) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The machines referred to are two Jackstone Junior Frosters supplied to the assessee by the manufacturers and we have the description thereof given by the suppliers themselves at various times. In their invoice they described the machines as 'Reconditioned Jackstone Junior Frosters Mark II'. Later they wrote to the assessee :'We confirm that the two Jackstone Junior Mark II Frosters which you purchased from us in June, 1954 were completely stripped and reassembled to incorporate the latest modifications and were covered by our twelve months guarantee as in the case of new Frosters.'In answer to an inquiry by the Income-tax officer they said :'The two Jackstone Junior Frosters purchased by the above from us in June, 1954 were completely strip...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vs. Kurien V. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR288(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether the sum of Rs. 16,477 received by the assessee as interest in terms of the order of the High Court in connection with the land acquisition proceedings is taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'An area of land belonging to the assessee was acquired by the State under the provisions of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089. The compensation awarded was enchanced first by the District Court and them by the High Court, and on the enhanced amount, interest was directed at 6 per cent. per annum from the date on which the assessee was dispossessed by the State. That interest, Rs. 16,477, is the interest specified in the question referred for decision.The Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089, like the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894, contains two provisions regarding the grant of interest. They are section 25(3) corresponding to s...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majeed (Meera Sahib) Vs. Bhargavan (Krishnan) Member, Legislativ ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker18
Velu Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the order of the Election Tribunal, Quilon, by which it dismissed the appellant's election petition, for declaring him to have been duly elected to the State Assembly from Chadayamangalam Constituency on holding the election for the first respondent or the respondent for short, the returned candidate, to be void. The electoral roll was compiled under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 andthe Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1956, which may be referred to hereatter as the 1950 Act and tha Rules respectively, the qualifying date being January 1, 1959. The election and the trial of the election petition were held under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended in the year 1958, which may be referred to as the Act. The respondent was declared elected by a majority of 122 votes, having secure...
Tag this Judgment!Potti Velu Pillai Nataraja Pillai and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahiman Kannu, Tr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker326
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. The plaintiff in 0. S. No. 543 of 1959 o1 the Munsiffs Court, Trivandrum, sued for cancellation of a decree for- specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property and recovery of possession of the property from the first defendant. The decree sought to be cancelled had been obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant, the father of the plaintiff who had sold the property to one Poti Velu Filial, after agreeing to sell the property to the first defendant. In execution of the decree, the court executed the sale deed to the first defendant and the consideration deposited in court by the first defendant was drawn by Poti Velu Pillai. The first defendant applied under Rule 1 cf Order 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for Issuing third party notice to the leeal representatives of Poti Velu Pillai. The persons served with third party notice entered appearance and objected to the same. Their objections were overruled and {he court pass...
Tag this Judgment!Josna Bank Ltd. Vs. Asian Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker309
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The 3rd defendant, namely, the Josha Bank Ltd., is the appellant and the main question in controversy is whether the appellant is entitled to priority on the amount in court deposit or whether the plaintiff-1st respondent, namely the Asian Bank Ltd., has priority. The lower court decided the question in favour of the latter and the former bas come up in appeal. The 2nd respondent before me is the 1st defendant and the 3rd respondent the 2nd defendant. The 4th respondent is the liquidator of the 1st respondent-Bank in voluntary liquidation. 2. The facts that led to the appeal, which are not In dispute may be briefly stated. The 1st defendant had an open loan account with the 3rd defendant from 1946. While so, the 3rd defendant filed O. S. No. 156 of 1124 against the 1st defendant; and the 1st defendant filed the statement Ex. II on 1st Meenam 1124 to the effect that he would deposit in court half the amount realised by sale of timber involved in the suit. Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!V.i. Elizabeth, Trichur Vs. E.P. Paul, Trichur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker214
1. This is an appeal by the wife against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her.2. It is clear from the evidence in the case that thee husband, the respondent before us, has been persistent by insisting that his wife should join the Chaldean Churcn. She is a Roman Catholic by faith. It is her case that this insistence at times took the form of infliction of physical Injury on her. Whatever be the truth or otherwise of the allegation regarding the infliction of physical cruelty, we are satisfied that the conduct of the husband in insisting that the wife should change her faith amounted to mental cruelty.3. The progressive tendency of the law has Droadend ed the basis of legal cruelty and it is well settled now that it is unnecessary for a wife to establish a mantai offence to resist an action for restitution of conjugal rights. It has been so held in Krishna Pillai v. neeiakanta Final, 1956 Ker LT 933 : (AIR 1957 Trav-Co. 293).4. We allow this appeal and dismis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »