Kerala Court September 1962 Judgments
Thycattuseri Church Vs. Sicillyamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker137
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal raises two questions on which there is considerable divergence of opinion; and they are:(1) Whether time under Article 11 A, Limitation Act, runs from the date of the order of the executing Court on the claim petition or of the High Court on a petition for its revision; and(2) if the starting point be the former, can the time taken by the revision proceeding be excluded from computation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. The suit property having been purchased by the plaintiff in Court sale was delivered to him by process of Court. The first defendant who had been in possession of the property as mortgagee under the purchaser in an earlier Court sale applied under Order 21 Rule 100 for restoration of possession to him and it was allowed by the executing Court on 18-3-1122. The plaintiff's petition for revision of that order was dismissed by the High Court on 25-4-1122. The present suit under Order 21 Rule 103 C. P. C. was instituted on 23-4-1123. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kizhakkeppallikl Moosa and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker68; 1963CriLJ180
Anna Chandy, J. 1. The three appellants together with four others were tried by the Sessions Judge of Kozhikode for the offences under Sections 147, 332, 307 and 477 of the I. P. C. The case against them was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting certain officers of the Sales Tax Department who were conducting a surprise inspection of the shop belonging to one of the accused and in furtherance of that object they caused hurt to one officer and attempted to murder another and also snatched away the account books of the shop which had been taken by the officers for inspection. The learned Judge acquitted four of the accused persons and convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 332 and 477 sentencing each to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the first count and four years under the second, the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly is this: Pws. 1, 2 and 3 are Intelligence Officers attac...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC1022(Ker)
Anna Chandy, J.1. The three appellants together with four others were tried by the Sessions Judge of Kozhikode for the offences under Sections 147, 332, 307 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting certain officers of the Sales Tax Department who were conducting a surprise inspection of the shop belonging to one of the accused and in furtherance of that object they caused hurt to one officer and attempted to murder another and also snatched away the account books of the shop which had been taken by the officers for inspection. The learned Judge acquitted four of the accused persons and convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 332 and 477 sentencing each to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the first count and four years under the second, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case briefly is this P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are Intelligence Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaraswamy Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR687(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year concerned is 1958-59 and the accounting period 1132 M. E.The assessee was one of the partners of a firm consisting of himself, his two minor daughters, Rajeswari and Mayadevi, Balakrishna Reddiar, the husband of Rajeswari, and Tiruvengada Reddiar, the husband of Mayadevi. The contention of the assessee which has been negatived by the Appellate Tribunal is that the department was in error in including the income of Rajeswari and Mayadevi from the from the firm in computing his total income for the purpose of assessment, and that the said inclusion is not warranted by section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.According to the assessee the income of Rajeswari from the firm should have been included in the total income of her husband, Balakrishna Reddiar, and of Mayadevi in the total income of her husband, Tiruvengada Reddiar...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Ravi Varma Raja Son of Krishna Raja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker123
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Kerala against the decision of Velu Pillai J., in S. A. No. 396 of 1960. The decision affirmed subject to certain modifications which are not material the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Parur in O. S. No. 11 of 1958. 2. O. S. No. 11 of 1958 was filed by the respondent before us. It sought a declaration to the effect that the liability of the State of Travancore to pay an annuity to the plaintiff's family had devolved on the State of Kerala. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in terms of the plaint. 3. The only contention urged before us by the Advocate General on behalf of the State is that the suit should have been dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. According to him formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin later termed the State of Travancore-Cochin on 1-7-1949 and the formation of the State of Kerala by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, on 1-11-1956 were acts of State, and no municipal...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Kunju Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC92(Ker)
Anna Chandy, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal.he respondent was charged for an offence under Section 19(b) of the General Sales Tax Act (XI of 1125) for non-payment of sales tax mounting to Rs. 610 for the year 1959-60. The order of assessment as made on 9th December, 1960, and notice of demand was served and accepted by the accused on 20th February,1961.He was asked to aake the payment within 21 days and as he failed to do so the comlaint was filed on 11st August, 1961.2. The service of the notice and the non-payment of the amount re not in dispute and are proved.3. The order of acquittal is based on the sole ground that due to he pendency of an appeal by the assessee questioning the validity of he assessment,the liability to pay the tax has not been finally adjudiated and as such the accused has not incurred criminal liability.4. It is argued by the learned State Prosecutor that the fact that he assessee has got a right of appeal or that he has ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sivasubramonia Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC465(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. These are appeals by the State. It is submitted that we should hold that the suits concerned were not maintainable and allow the appeals on that ground.2. No other contention was urged before us. And no other contention, therefore, arises for consideration.3. The suits were for the recovery of amounts collected by way of sales tax. That the collections were unauthorised is not disputed by the State. The only contention, as already stated, is that a resort to the civil courts is unavailable.4. At the relevant time there was no provision in the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, which precluded the filing of suits, Section 23-A of the Act which says :No suit or other proceeding shall, except as expressly provided in this Act, be instituted in any court to set aside or modify any assessment made under this Act was introduced only by Section 12 of Act 18 of 1955.5. The order of reference deals with the question as follows:The matter has been recently considered in George v. St...
Tag this Judgment!Harrisons and Crosfield Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-07-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC964(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The assessee, M/s. Harrisons & Crosfield Limited, Quilon, is the petitioner before us. The question of law raised for decision is formulated in the petition as follows :Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the fabrication of steel to the specification of the customers amounts to 'works contract' as denned in Section 2(1) of the General Sales Tax Act ?2. The definition of the expression 'works contract' in Section 2(1) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, is :'works contract' means any agreement for carrying out for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of any building, road, bridge, or other immovable property or the fitting out, improvement or repair of any movable property.The contention of the assessee is that what we are concerned with are agreements for the 'fitting out' of movable property.3. The Appellate Tribunal said :The only question that arises for consideration in t...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. S. Ve ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC930(Ker)
1. This petition by the Department challenges the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 98 of 1960 to the effect that the sales tax collected by the assessee from his customers is not liable to assessment even though it had not been shown as a separate item in the bills issued by him. The year concerned is 1956-57, and the amount of sales tax collected in respect of which relief was denied amounts to Rs. 43,460.2. The controversy centres round Rule 7 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. The relevant portion of that rule reads as follows :-(i) The tax or taxes under Section 3 or 5 or the notifications under Section 6 shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer. In determining the net turnover, the amounts specified in Clauses (a) to (k) shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer :-(k) all amounts of sales tax collected by the dealer.3. The assessing authority said :So long as the sales tax has not been sho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›