Kerala Court July 1962 Judgments
Subramania Iyer S/O Sundaran Pattar and ors. Vs. K.R. Anantanarayana I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker261
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The main question for consideration is a short one and that is whether the provisions of Ex. B-1 disclose a mortgage transaction or a tenancy arrangement. In such a case where the question to be decided is whether the transaction is a lease or a mortgage, the only guiding rule that can be extracted from the cases on the subject is that the intention of the parties must be looked into and that once a debt with security of land for its redemption is found, then the arrangement is a mortgage, by whatever name it is called. It has been so laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari Saran, AIR 1958 SC 941.2. The provisions of Ex. B-1 indubitably indicate that the intention of the parties to the document was to create a debtor and creditor relationship, with the land transferred as security for the repayment of the debt. An amount of Rs. 2,500/-is advanced to pay off the several debts enumerated in the document and the document is styled karipanayadhar...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakku Kumara Pillai Thanu Pillai Vs. Mathevan Mathevan of Aravamkadu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker179
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage; and the appeal concerns only the compensation for improvements and damages for waste claimed mutually. The complaints are firstly, that the Court below has ordered payment of compensation to the defendants for buildings put up by them in violation or an Injunction prohibiting their construction; and secondly, that the Court below has declined to investigate the claim of the appellant for damages for waste (cutting old trees) committed by the defendants during the pendency of the appeal in the Court below on the ground 'No issue regarding waste had been raised in the trial of the suit'.As regards the waste, the observation of the court below is prima facie unsustainable. No party can be blamed for not moving the trial Court concerning claims that arose subsequent to its decision in the case. The commissioner deputed by the tower appellate Court Inspected the property on January 18, 1953,...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswatha Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC60(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. These three tax revision cases are by the samedealers, Messrs Saraswatha Corporation, a limited concern, and relaterespectively to years of assessment 1952-53,1954-55 and 1955-56. The revision petitioner has been assessed to sales tax for the above three years in relation to certain transactions, the details of which will be stated presently, and these assessments have been confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by three orders which have been challenged in these three revision cases. It is admitted before us that the transactions for the three years are of the same pattern and that the statements in the order of the Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No. 138 of 1960 pertaining to the year 1954-55 may be taken as giving a correct statement of the facts relating to these transactions. We are therefore disposing of these three cases by a single judgment. The Tribunal has described the transactions as follows :-The appellant-company corresponds, enters into a contra...
Tag this Judgment!Poulose Bros. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC40(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. In this Tax Revision Case various points were originally raised. None of them are pressed before us. The only point urged is regarding the taxability of 'copra' as such and this on the basis of a memo filed before us today. The point raised being a pure question of law we allowed the additional point raised being argued.2. Item 41 to the Schedule to the notification dated 1st April, 1958, published in the Kerala Gazette, Ext. No. 53, dated 1st April, 1958, reads thus: 'Cocoanut including copra', and item 44 is in these terms: 'Cashewnut including its kernel'. We had recently to consider the question whether the kernel of the cashewnut after shelling was taxable. We held that 'cashewnut including its kernel', the item which was made taxable at the last purchase point, meant the whole or unshelled nut. The decision is reported in Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kerala [1963] 14 S.T.C. 36. We think the reasoning in that case will apply to the question that ar...
Tag this Judgment!A.T.K.M. Employees' Association Vs. Musaliar Industries (Private) Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ317Ker
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O.P. No. 156 of 1959 against the dismissal of that petition. The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for a writ of certiorari against an award under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The prayer was rejected by Velu Pillal, J., in the Judgment under appeal 1961-I L.L.J. 81 on the preliminary ground that a writ of certiorari is not competent against on award under that section.2. Section 10A which was inserted by Act XXXVI of 1956 reads as follows:(1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and the employer and the workmen agree to refer the dispute to arbitration, they may, at any time, before the dispute has been referred under Section 10 to a labour court or tribunal or national tribunal, by a written agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration and the reference shall be to such person or persons (including the presiding officer of a labour court or tribunal or national trib...
Tag this Judgment!Nair (G.V.) Alias Vasudevan Nair (G.) and anr. Vs. Government of India ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ301Ker
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. These appeals are by accused 1 and 2 against the judgment of the Special Judge, Trichur, convicting both the accused of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, the accused 1 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act, Section 477A, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 471 read with Section 467, Indian Penal Code, and the accused 2 for abetment of the offences under Sections 5(2), 477A and 471, Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fine. In Calendar Revision No. 2 of 1962 notice has been issued by this Court calling upon the, accused to show cause why the sentence awarded on them should not be enhanced.2. The prosecution case shortly stated is as follows:Sri G.V. Nair, the accused 1 in the case, is a public servant in the service of the Kerala Government. During the relevant period his s...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Kutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker152; 1963CriLJ597
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Malapuram under Section 211 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode and has now moved this Court in Revision.2. The Prosecution alleged that the petitioner a prominent.worker of the Communist Party falsely accused P. Ws. 8 and 9 of having murdered Kunhi Mohammed (P. W. 1) by beating him and throwing his body into the river, knowing fully well that no such thing had taken place. P. W. 1 who took a room belonging to P. W. 8 on rent allowed the rent to fall into arrears. According to the prosecution he voluntarily surrendered the room on 8-9-1959 at 4 P. M. and handed over the key to P. W. 8. The accused and P. W. 3 another prominent member of the Communist Party approached P. W. 1 and pressed him to disappear from the place and sent him to his father-in-law's house at Cherub ad i in Nilgiris. Thereafter the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Joseph Augusti and ors. Vs. M.A. Narayanan, Official Liquidator, th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker81; [1963]33CompCas123(Ker)
1. These are appeals from a common order in B. C. P. No. 11 of I960 directing the public examination of the appellants under S. 45S of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (1962 Ker L. T. 37), The appellant in A. S. No. 37 of 1962 was the Managing Director of the bank in liquidation from 26-1-1927 to 8-8-1960, and the appellants in A. S. Nos. 39 and 45 of 1962 were the Directors of the bank from 14-1-1935 to 8-8-1960 and 25-1-1927 to 8-8-1960 respectively. 2. The application for the winding up of the bank was made by the Reserve Bank under Section 38(3)(b)(iii) ofthe Banking Companies Act, 1949, which provides that It may make such an application if in its opinion the continuance of the banking company is prejudicial to the Interests of its depositors. By an order dated 8-8-1960 the Official Liquidator of this Court was appointed the Provisional Liquidator of the bank. The order for winding up followed. 5-12-1960, and the appointment of the Official Liquidator' was made on an application by...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Namboodiri Vs. Govindan Nair S/O Kottukunnathu Ittichiri Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ535
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Munsift Magistrate of Pattambi acquitting the accused who had been prosecuted for an offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that in the issue of the Malayalam daily 'Deshabhimani' dated 12-8-1961 the accused published a false imputation against the appellant with intent to defame him and harm his reputation. Ext. P1 is the offending publication in the paper. The original has been proved by Pw. 3 the printer and publisher of the paper and Pw. 4 a teacher in the school in which the accused is employed has proved that it is in the handwriting of the accused. The accused when questioned has admitted that it was he who had written the article and got it published. His case is that the publication does not refer to the appellant that it was against the appellant's son who was the Adhikari during the relevant period and that every word of what is stated is true. He sought to prove this...
Tag this Judgment!Velama and ors. Vs. Raya Shenoy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker356
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. This appeal is by the first defendant from the decrees of the Courts below setting aside a document, Ext. D-l, executed in her favour by the second defendant, her husband. The trial Court found on issue No. 2 which reads;'Whether D1 is not a purchaser in good faith and for consideration' that the first defendant is not a purchaser in good faith and that the assignment is not supported by consideration. A point was raised before the trial Court, which is the subject-matter of Issue No. 3 that the suit is notmaintainable since it had not been brought as a, representative action on behalf of the body of creditors. The trial Court took the view that the suit being one to set aside a claim order under the specific provision, Rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is unnecessary to bring the action as a representative one on behalf of all the creditors. The lower appellate Court too negatived the contention on the view it took of the nature of the alle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›