Kerala Court August 1962 Judgments
Kunhuman Vs. Kotha and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ667
Anna Chandy, J.1. The only question to be decided in this Criminal Appeal is whether the trial Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused under Section 247 of the criminal Procedure Code for the absence of the complainant, when the complainant was but 15 minutes late in reaching the Court.2. The appellant, the Panchayat Officer and the Executive Authority of the Arthat Panchayat was the complainant in the lower Court. The four respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 66 (a) and (b) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat, Act (Act II of 1950) for having unlawfully and without the knowledge or consent of the Panchayat removed a considerable quantity of earth from a public road thereby causing an obstruction in the road as well as loss to the Hancnayat to the extent of about Rs. 100/-. The complaint was filed before the Second Class Magistrate, Talapilly On 4-7-1961. In pursuance of the summons from the court accused 1 and 2 appeared in Court on 30-9-1961 and 14-1...
Tag this Judgment!Nani Amma Nannini Amma Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker114
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. For realisation of arrears of revenue the suit property came to be sold in auction on 30-9-1116 M.t. and the sale confirmed by the Assistant Peistikar, Alleppey, on 29-12-1116. Pursuant to the sale, delivery of posses-sion was effected on 6-4-1120 in favour of the auction purchaser, who is a brother of the plaintiff. The plaintifwas a hypothecates of the property under the original owners. She claims to have obtained assignment of the auction purchaser's rights and thereby to have become the absolute owner of the suit property. On 31-10-1122 defendants 2 and 3 claiming to be interested in the property moved a petition for revision of the order confirming the revenue sale before the District Collector, Quilon, which came to be disposed of on 12-9-1952 by an order which reads as follows :'Heard the Vakil for the petitioners and the Advocate for the counter-petitioner and perused the records, it is clear from the records that the sale had been brought about during t...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC927(Ker)
1. The assessee, Parvathi Mills (Private) Limited, Quilon, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The petition is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Tribunal Appeal No. 313 of 1960.2. The period concerned is 1st July, 1957, to 13th December, 1957. The sole point for determination is whether a sum of Rs. 1,38,901-75 paid by the assessee as excise duty to the Central Government will form part of its assessable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petition formulates the questions for decision as follows :-(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,38,901-75 representing the excise duty paid to the Central Government and separately charged in the sale bills issued to the buyers, forms part of the assessable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether the excise duty paid to the Central Government and charged separately in the sale bills issued to the buyers is an allowable deduc...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Kanji (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer, Special ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker202
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The respective petitioners, in these writ petitions, challenge the orders of assessment passed by the concerned Sales-tax Officers, making them liable tor payment of sales-tax under the General Sales-tax Act, 1125, as the last purchaser of the commodity, in question, in the State. Their contention is that the imposition of a levy, in the circumstances, on the last purchase in the State, offends Article 301 of the Constitution and is not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution. There are no doubt certain other questions arising for decision in these writ petitions. But the common question that arises is regarding the attack on these assessments, based upon Articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution; and I have heard arguments only on that aspect at present.2. As Mr. K. V. Surianarayana lyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who are the same in both O. P. Nos. 3210/61 and 261/62 has advanced the leading arguments on this aspect, I will refe...
Tag this Judgment!Periya Kelu Nair Son of Cheriya Amma Vs. Kariyappau Son of Maliga
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker313
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The main question in this case is whether the suit is barred fay res judicata by reason of a previous suit. Though some other questions have also been raised during the course of the fairly elaborate discussion at the bar, a closer scrutiny has revealed that only the question of res judicata need be considered, and therefore both the learned counsel have concentrated their attention on that question. Several decisions including a few of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council have been placed before me. I do not propose to consider all of them, because, according to me, the question would be clinched by the decisions of the Supreme Court, which I shall discuss hereinafter. There is a minor question regarding a house, which will also be adverted to in its proper place towards the close of the judgment. 2. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the properties scheduled to the plaint and also for confirming the plaintiff's possession of a house therein and for...
Tag this Judgment!Thattaliyath Panchali and ors. Vs. Cheruvari Panniyodan Manni and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker66
ORDER1. The petitioners in O. P. No. 52 of 1957 of the Court of the Munsif of Tellicherry -- the appellants in A. S. No. 134 of 1959 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry -- are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. Their prayer, negatived by both the Courts below, was for redelivery of property under Section 5(2) of Madras Act No. 22 of 1956. 2. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act provides that nothing contained in that section shall affect the rights of any bona fide transferee from the landlord. The sole question for determination in this case is whether a member of a marumakkathayam tarwad obtaining property in family partition can be considered to be a transferee within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 5. It is common ground that if he can be so considered, the decision of the courts below has to be affirmed and that if he cannot be so considered, the decision of the Courts below has to be reversed and this petition allowed. 3.According to Se...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works, Kakkat, Cannanore and ors. Vs. the Regiona ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker219; (1964)ILLJ528Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these writ petitions, though the petitioners are different, they challenge the proceedings taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum, under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, Central Act 19 of 1952, by way of demanding contributions, or threatening to claim damages for default in making contributions or threatening prosecution for non-payment of the contribution.2. in O. P. Nos. 297, 783, 817 and 881 of 1961, the managements are represented by Mr. M. I. Joseph, learned counsel, and the management-petitioner in O. P. No. 791 of 1961 is represented by its learned counsel, Mr. Bhaskaran Nambiar. All these managements are textile industries; and there is no controversy that textile industry has been included in the schedule to the Employees' Provident Funds Act by Notification issued by the Central Government.3. Evidently, in view of this, proceedings have been initiated by the respondent calling upon the various managements to...
Tag this Judgment!Konnan Sanku of Moothedathu and anr. Vs. Kalyani Parvathi Amma and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker249
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The suit properties were demised on lease by the Jenmi to one Konnan (senior) who died leaving him surviving, four sons, Konnan (junior) who was the deceased husband of the 3rd plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs and 2, Ravunny who was the father of defendants 6 and 7, Ittaman the 4th defendant, and Velayu-dhan the 5th defendant. Ravunny, and defendants 4 and 5, mortgaged the leasehold by Ext. A in the year 1108 to the first defendant. The jenmi gave a subsequent lease of the properties to the second defendant, the wife of the first defendant, Ext. B in the year 1118. She sued the first defendant, Ravunny, and defendants 4 and 5, in O. S. No. 350 of 1118 for recovery of possession. Pursuant to the decree therein the first defendant surrendered the properties to her. The plaintiffs have now sued to redeem Ext. A. The two Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. In this second appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2, the sole questio...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Devassia Katavil and ors. Vs. Changanacherry Municipality and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker200; 1963CriLJ21
ORDER1. Cr. R. P. No. 302 of 1961 is filed by the accused in Summary Trial Case 1787 of I960. He was prosecuted by the Changanacherry Municipality for offences under Sections 334 and 359 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act -- Act XXIII of 1116--for contravention of the provisions of Section 261 and the bye-laws framed thereunder for having stored in building No. 348, tiles, bricks and surki without taking out a licence. The second Class Bench of Magistrates Changanacherry who tried the case convicted him of the offences charged.Cr. R. P. No. 310 of 1961 is filed by the accused in Summary Trial Case 1786 of 1960 who had been convicted for a like offence for having stocked for sale coffee husk and tea without obtaining a licence.Cr. R. P. Nos. 382 and 383 of 1961 are filed by one P. K. Hassanbava Rowther, a Tea Merchant in Kottayam, who was prosecuted and convicted for an offence under Rule 31(2) read with Rule 38 of Schedule II and Section 360 of the Travancore District Munici...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raman Dewaswam Chirayil Vs. Alleppey Central Coir Marketing Co-oper ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker264
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. We doubt whether a petition similar to the one moved by the appellant-judgment-debtor for instalment payment of the due amount is maintainable. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Madras High Court in V. P. Madhavan Nambiar v. Syrian Bank Ltd., (S) AIR 1955 Mad 409 wherein it has been held that it would be just and fair to pass an order for instalment payment in the first instance before the judgment-debtor is committed to prison. Neither Section 51 nor Rules 39 and 40 of Order XXI provide for any instalment payments. It is clearthat a decree for instalment payment can be passed only on consent of the decree-holder: Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of Order 20. We doubt whether the Court can direct in execution such instalment payment. We therefore dismiss this appeal. At the same time we make it clear that it is open to the judgment-debtor to raise the objection that he is not liable to be detained in prison. It is for the decree-holder to make out, if he want...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »