Kerala Court March 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.
Anamalai Timber Trust Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR814(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acting under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act has referred the following question for the decision of this court :'Whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 9,020-12-6 from the computation of its income in the relevant accounting year under any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is a limited concern called 'The Anamalai Timber Trust Ltd.' For the year of assessment 1956-57, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 9,020-12-6 as an allowable deduction in computing its income. This amount represented part of the compensation by way of damages and costs decreed by the High Court in appeal from a suit filed by the State against the assessee. It is necessary to refer to the facts of that case.The Tripunithura Devaswom owned an elephant named 'Narayanankutty', Before the Devaswom Board, Cochin, was formed, the said Devaswom was under the control of the Government of Cochin. An agreement dated 15-5-1917...
B.K. Abdulla Yelinje Mammi Vs. M.S. Kadambalithaya Chennakeshava
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker198
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The plaintiff sued for damages for loss of 112 muras of rice, which was entrusted for transport by the first defendant's lorry M.D.X. 1860 from the southern bank at Thekkil ferry to the plaintiff's Aletti estate. It was loaded on March 24, 1953, and was driven by the second defendant that night. Transport of rice by night along the route being prohibited, the lorry and rice were both seized at the checking station. The second defendant was eventually convicted and the rice was confiscated. The plaintiff also sought to recover charges incurred by him in transporting by headload other rice which he purchased in replacement for use in his estate. Both the defendants denied their liability and contested the suit. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit against both, for the value of 112 muras of rice and interest thereon and disallowed the rest of the claim. The first defendant has preferred this appeal and the plaintiffs has preferred a memorandum of objections agains...
Kunjan Manu and ors. Vs. Aspinwalla and Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker264; (1963)ILLJ212Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. K. Velayudhan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the common award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, in I. D. Nos. 50, 53 and 58 of 1959.2. The management appears to have terminated the services of certain workers; and, in view of the fact that an industrial dispute was already pending as I. D. No. 20/1958, it was the grievance of the workers concerned, that action has been taken by the management, contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, under Section 33A of the Act, 23 workers made a complaint before theIndustrial Tribunal, which was registered as Industrial Disputes Nos. 50, 53 and 58 of 1959.3. The main grievance of the workers concerned, as I mentioned earlier, was that their discharge was contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.4. There is no controversy, and it is also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the w...
Vengara Narayanan Vs. Orakkan Govindan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ819
1. On a petition from the first respondent herein that the revision petitioner had recently constructed a compound wall obstructing vehicular traffic through the Ezhara road in Edak-kad amsom, the learned Executive First Class Magistrate of Tellicherry, was satisfied that emergent action was necessary and he made a conditional order under cl. (i) of Section 133, Cr.P.C' requiring the revision petitioner to remove the same obstruction or to show cause why the order should not be enforced.2. Section 139-A (1), Cr.P.C. provides that where an order is made under Section 133, the Magistrate shall on the appearance before him of the person against whom the order was made, question him as to whether he denies the existence of any public right and hold an inquiry; and Sub-section (2) provides if in such inquiry the Magistrate finds that there is no reliable evidence in support of such denial, he shall proceed as laid down in Section 137 or Section 138, Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate takes the contr...
Assanar Pillai Mohammed Kassim Pillai Vs. Secretary, State Transport A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker331
Govindan Nair, J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this application under Article 226 is about the legality of the order Ext. P-1 passed by the sole respondent, the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, suspending the permits of two vehicles owned by the petitioner, for a period of one month each.2. The ground on which the permits were suspended is that the vehicles concerned have been used on a route not mentioned in the permit and the order was passed under Section 60(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 60(1)(b) reads as follows:'60 Cancellation and suspension of permits (1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit-- (a) .....(b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or... A contention was raised before us that even if the vehicles have been used on a route for which there was no permit granted, ...
Krishna Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC838(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The first question for consideration in these petitions is whether 'green ginger' is liable to taxation under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, Both the petitions are by the same person.2. The period covered by the assessment order challenged in O.P. 767 of 1959-Exihibit A-is the period from 1st October, 1957 to 31st March, 1958, and the period covered by the assessment order challenged in O.P. 542 of 1960-Exhibit A-is the period from 1st April, 1958 to 31st March, 1959.3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on two notifications of the Government in support of the non-liability to taxation claimed in respect of 'green ginger', one dated 15th June, 1950, and issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government, and another dated 25th March, 1958, and issued by the Government of Kerala. Both the notifications were issued under Section 6 of the Act. The item exempted was described as follows :Vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product.' This exemption applied f...
Narayanan S/O Late Ganesh Pai Vs. Aesha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker197
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The short question to be considered is whether the Provident Fund amount of an employee in the Central Bank of India is the absolute property of his wife, who is the nominee under the Provident Fund Rules of the Bank, on the death of the subscriber, so that the amount is not liable for attachment for a debt due by the subscriber. The learned Munsif of Cochin has taken the view that it was not attachable and the creditor has come up in revision.2. Rule 23 of the Employees' Provident Fund Rules of the Bank, marked as Ex. D-3, provides that each member may nominate in writing any person, to whom the amount standing to the credit of such member shall be paid, in the event of his death while in the service of the Bank or before his claim on the Fund shall have been discharged, and may from time to time change such nomination in writing. Under this provision the subscriber nominated his wife, who is the respondent before me.3. In the recent Full Bench decision in Sar...
Kannambath Narayanan Nair Vs. Kannambath Sankaran Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker79
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for a declaration that an assignment executed by him in favour of the 1st defendant, who is none other than his own younger brother, was sham and did not come to effect. 2. The plaintiff was holding the suit property as 3 lessee. In October 1942, the landlord served on him Ext, A 7 notice to quit, to which he sent the reply Ext, A8 ue-nyrng the landlord's right to resume the land under the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Apprehending that the landlord might institute a suit for his eviction, the plaintiff, on February 9, 1943, executed Ext. Al as signment of his tenancy in the name of the 1st defendant, who was then in the Army, The assignment was designeo to secure the benefit of the Indian Soldiers' Litigation Act, to delay any attempt by the landlord to resuma the land through a court of law. As apprehended the landlord did sue for the plaintiff's eviction, in 0. S. No. 345 of 1943 on the file of the Muns...
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Triva ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC16(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is a petition by the Sales Tax Department under Section 15-B(1) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The period concerned is the period from 1st October, 1957, to 31st March, 1958.2. The respondent purchased 'firewood' from the forest department of the State, and later sold it at Trivandrum at Rs. 24 per ton as provided in the agreement with the State dated 14th October, 1957. The Sales Tax Department had a contention before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that what was sold to the petitioner by the forest department should not be considered as 'firewood'. This contention was discussed and negatived by the Tribunal for reasons which we consider valid. As we are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point the case has to be dealt with on the basis that what was sold by the forest department to the respondent was 'firewood' and that what was sold later by the respondent to its customers was also the same commodity.3. During the period from 1st October, 1957, to 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›