Kerala Court June 1962 Judgments
K. Joseph Augusti and ors. Vs. M.A. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker72; [1963]33CompCas126(Ker)
ORDER1. The respondent, the Official Liquidator of the, Palai Central Bank Ltd., raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals from an order directing the public examination of the appellants under Section 45-G of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. He contends that no appeal is competent in view of Section 45-N of that Act.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 45-N provides that an appeal shall, lie from any order or decision of the High Court in a civil proceeding under the Act when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the claim exceeds five thousand rupees. Sub-section (3) of Section 45-N says that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) we are not concerned with Sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.'every order or decision of the High Court shall be final and binding for all purposes as between the banking company on the one hand, and all persons who are parties thereto and...
Tag this Judgment!M. Appukutty Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC489(Ker)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition the main ground of attack that has been raised as against the order of assessment to sales tax, exhibit P-3, dated 28th March, 1960, for the assessment year 1958-59, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Kozhikode, is that the assessing authority has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adding 25% towards the so-called omission and fixing the estimate on this basis in the additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000.2. There are also several other grounds of attack regarding the assessment order, which I do not think it necessary to go into at present.3. It seems in the pre-assessment notice, exhibit P-1, the assessing authority states that from the secret account books detected from Shri Pattiari Pachukutty of Kozhikode, three purchases are stated to have been made by Pachukutty from Messrs Haridas Bros., namely:-1. 5-5-1958 Rs. 1,555-062. 31-3-1958 Rs. 508-503. 10-6-1958 Rs. 550-41The total of these three items comes to Rs. 2,613-97. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ephraim Fernandez Vs. Madi Pillay Sivakamy Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker293
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The question for decision sounds simple. It is this: 'When does time begin to run under Article 182 of the Limitation Act for the execution of a decree made on remand where there has been an appeal against the order of remand and that appeal is decided (by dismissal) after the passing of the decree on remand? From the date of the decree or from the date of the dismissal of the appeal'.No case directly in point has been brought to my notice. Nevertheless the answer seems to me simple enough, namely, that time begins to run from the date of the decree passed on remand, and, left to my own resources, uninformed by the conflicting decisions of the several High Courts regarding the scope of the word, 'appeal' in Clause (2) of Article 182, that is an answer I should have readily found.2. The facts are these:A suit for redemption brought by the predecessor of the present respondents was dismissed by the trial Court on the 20th September 1953. The plaintiff appealed, and...
Tag this Judgment!Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., Munnar Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Er ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker44; (1962)IILLJ158Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In both these writ petitions, a common question of law arises as to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, to proceed with the hearing of applications, filed by the respective petitioners, under Section 33(2)(b) Proviso, of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. In order to appreciate the contentions that have been urged by the learned counsel appearing on all sides, it is desirable to set out the circumstances under which these two writ petitions have been filed.3. In O. P. No. 2883 of 1961 the order dated 12-7-1961 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, Ext. P-1, in M. P. No. 77 of 1961 is challenged. There was an industrial dispute pending adjudication between the management therein and the workers, regarding bonus and that industrial dispute was registered as I. D. No. 68 of 1959. When that dispute was pending the management took disciplinary proceedings against the second respondent and by order dated 7-5-1960 dismissed her from servic...
Tag this Judgment!Periyadath Koman Vs. Kunhirama Warrier
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker186
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff-mortgages who sued to enforce the mortgage evidenced by Ext. A-1, dated 18th August 1943. The suit claim is a sum of Rs. 2,119 made up of the principal mortgage amount (Rs. 2,000) and interest accrued, thereon (Rs. 119). The mortgage was for a term of 10 years. Contemporaneously with the mortgage there was a lease-back of even date. The mortgage deed provided for interest on the mortgage amount at the rate of 90 parahs of paddy annually as the mortgagor was to retain possession of the mortgaged property with him; and the lease deed, as Is seen from Ext. B-1 judgment produced by the defence, provided for a rent of 90 parahs of paddy per annum to be paid to the mortgagee.2. The defendant contended that the plaintiff-mortgagee having instituted two suits, O. S. Nos. 605 of 1953 and 270 of 1954, for arrears of rent covering a period after the expiry of the term, when the mortgage money had also become due, the present suit is barred by Ord...
Tag this Judgment!The Malabar Oil Mills Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC106(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The assessee, the Malabar Oil Mills, Valapad, purchased both imported and local copra during the year with which we are concerned, the assessment year 1958-59. A portion of the oil and cake produced in the mills was sold in inter-State trade, and a portion of the oil was used for the manufacture of soap in the soap works of the assessee. The balance of the oil and cake produced by the mills was sold within the State.2. The value of the total quantity of oil produced is Rs. 8,80,016-39. Of these Rs. 2,17,761 worth of oil was sold in inter-State trade and Rs. 59,429 worth of oil was used for the manufacture of soap. The balance, namely, Rs. 6,02,826-39 worth of oil, was sold within the State.3. The total value of cake produced was Rs. 87,532-34. Of these Rs. 6,722 worth of cake was sold in inter-State trade. The balance, namely, Rs. 80,810-34 worth of cake, was sold within the State.4. There can be no doubt that Rs. 2,17,761 worth of oil and Rs. 6,722 worth of cake sol...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Karim Vs. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC36(Ker)
M. S. Menon, C.J. 1. 'Cashewnut including its kernel' is item 37 of Schedule I to the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The rate of tax specified in column (3) of the said Schedule is 4 nP. for every rupee in the turnover relating to such goods.2. By virtue of a notification under Section 5(vii) of the Act dated the 1st April, 1958, 'cashewnut including its kernel'-item 44 of the notification-is taxable only at a single point, the last purchase in the State by a dealer who is not exempt from taxation under Section 3(3) of the Act. According to Section 5(vii), where the taxable point specified is a point of purchase, the buyer-and not the seller-is the person liable for the tax.3. The item as it originally occurred in Schedule I to the Act was 'cashew and its kernels'. The same was the wording in the earlier notification under Section 5(vii) of the Act dated the 28th September, 1957, which was superseded by the notification of the 1st April, 1958.4. The expression 'cashewnut including its ke...
Tag this Judgment!Gheevarghese Koshy Vs. Chacko Thomas of Pallimadyil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker191
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The trial court appointed the 2nd defendant and another as receivers pending O. S. No. 173 of 1959 on its file. On appeal and cross-appeal by the parties the lower appellate court set-aside that order and granted a temporary injunction as prayed for in the plaint. The 2nd defendant has come up in revision questioning the jurisdiction of the lower courts to pass any interim order at all. When the case came up before me on a previous occasion, the learned counsel on both sides agreed that the question regarding jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit itself might be decided as a preliminary issue before the Civil-Revision Petition was taken up for hearing. Therefore, I directed the trial court to submit a finding regarding its jurisdiction to try the suit itself; and' the trial court has now submitted a finding that the suit falls beyond the scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore it has jurisdiction to try it. The correctn...
Tag this Judgment!A. Parameswara Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker92
C.A. Vaidialingam, J,1. In this writ petition Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the proceedings taken by the State Government, and which ultimately resulted in the passing of the order, Ext. P-8, by the respondent on 20-6-1961. Under Ext. P-8, it will be seen that the State Government are of the view that, misbehaviour as against the petitioner, has been proved and that he is dismissed from service with effect from 13-2-1961, the date on which he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges framed as against him.2. The petitioner joined as a clerk in the Land Revenue Department in 1107 and he was occupying various positions after that period and ultimately in 1955, he was promoted and posted as Sub-Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. On 6-10-1956, the Bar Association, Irinjalakuda, passed a resolution alleging serious misconduct as against the petitioner and requesting for action being taken as against him. On a copy of the resolution bein...
Tag this Judgment!Andi Vasudevan of Azhikkakathu Vs. Bhagavathipillai Vasudevan Pillai a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker263
1. This appeal by the 8th defendant is against the order of the lower appellate Court rejecting his objections to the executability of the decree. The execution Court had allowed his objections. The decree in the case which was sought to be executed was passed on 14-4-1117 against the first defendant alone. In the plaint a charge was also claimed on the plaint property, which was purchased by the first defendant from the plaintiff. The amount claimed, it was alleged, represented balance of purchase money. Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as subsequent encumbrances. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 1-8-1113. At the second defendant's instance, the decree was reopened and it was again decreed on 3-11-1114 on the same terms. Thereafter, the third defendant applied to have the decree reopened which was done on 3-12-1115 and the suit was once again decreed on 14-4-1117 as against the first defendant alone. It was further stated in the decree dated 14-4-1117 that the suit in so far as i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »