Kerala Court November 1963 Judgments
K.i. Abraham Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker131; [1964]15STC110(Ker)
Joseph, J.1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under section of the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956), in respect of his inter-State trade in coconut oil for the year 1959-60, and out of a total turnover of Rs. 2,30,990-5/, tax was imposed at the rate of 1% on Rs. 1,93,346/- and at 7% on the balance, namely, Rs. 37,645/-, on the ground mat the relevant declarations in Form C were not filed before the prescribed authority, the Sales Tax Officer, before 16-2-1961. These were filed before the sales tax Officer only on 8-3-1961 but before the assessment was made, the delay being explained as due to late receipt of the same from the purchaser in Madras. Ex. P-2 is copy of the order of assessment. the petitioner preferred an appeal 10 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a revision pemiun before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural income-tax and Sales tax but these were unsuccessful; Exs. P-3 and P-4 respectively are the orders in appeal and revision. He has moved this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!M.T. Kumaran and Co. Vs. Secretary, Malabar Market Committee
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC634(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The sole question for determination in these petitions relates to the validity of Section 11 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933. That Section as amended by the Madras Commercial Crops Markets (Amendment) Act, 1955, reads as follows :-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939), the Market Committee shall, subject to such Rules as may be made in this behalf, levy a cess by way of sales tax on any commercial crop bought and sold in the notified area at such rates as the State Government may, by notification, determine.Explanation:-For the purpose of this Sub-section, all commercial crops leaving a notified area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be bought and sold within such area.(2) The cess referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be paid by the purchaser of the commercial crop concerned:Provided that where the purchaser of a commercial crop cannot be identified, the cess shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Damodaran Namboodiripad Vs. Thatohudaya Kaimal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker6
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This appeal arises in execution of a mortgage decree. At execution, Rs. 11,000 odd have beendeposited as the price of redemption decreed, and the property has been delivered to the plaintiff. The 12th defendant, the mortgagee on record, prayed for payment of the amount in Court less what has been claimed out of it by the other defendants. In other words, the prayer was only that the undisputed portion of the amount in Court that belonged to him might be delivered to him. The Court below dismissed that prayer, directing him to a fresh suit therefor. Hence this appeal.2. The facts show no justification for the order of the Court below. If the mortgagee, after surrender of the property to the mortgagor, claimed to be paid only such portion of the mortgage-amount that is beyond dispute by the other parties in the case, we do not see why the same was not allowed forthwith.3. The practice found in some Courts of decreeing redemption to the plaintiff-mortgagor, leaving th...
Tag this Judgment!The Nair Service Society Vs. Krishna Pillai Kunjukrishna Pillai and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker265
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff -- the Nair Service Society -- against the decision of the District Court of Quilon in O. S. No. 156 of 1953. The suit was for a subscription of Rs. 10,000/- allesed to have been promised by the 1st defendant to the Society for the starting of a first grade college in central Travancore. The 1st defendant died during the course of the trial and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 2 to 10 by the order dated 26-11-1957 on C. M. P. No. 1912 of 1957.2. All the issues in the case except issue No. 2 -- Is the suit barred by limitation? -- were decided in favour of the Society. On that issue the conclusion of the court below was that the suit was barred by limitation and in the light of that conclusion the suit was dismissed with the direction that the parties should bear their respective costs.3. We are in entire agreement with the court below in its conclusion that the 1st defendant did promise a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the st...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kunhikutty Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker253
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J.1. By an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, at its meeting held on 30-10-1961, a permit was issued to the petitionerwho was applicant No. 2 on the route Murad-Azhiyur Sub Registry Office, via Badagara. The seventh applicant before the Regional Transport Authority is the second respondent to this writ application. The Regional Transport Authority allotted the highest marks among the applicants to applicant No. 7, but denied him a permit on the ground that 'Applicant No. 7 the Punchiri Motor Service has as many as 9 routes overlapping portions along this route and hence it is considered that in the interest of maintaining healthy competition his claims to this route should be rejected.'2. Appeals were taken by the unsuccessful applicants before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the first respondent herein, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by order produced along with this writ application, Ext. P-3, cancelled the issue of...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1963
Reported in: (1964)ILLJ559Ker
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is a petition by he Kerala State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society, Ltd., under Articles. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Respondent 1 is the State of Kerala; the second, the industrial tribunal, Trivandrum; and the third, the secretary of the Travancore Sreemoolam Handloom Weavers' Central Co-operative Society Staff Association, Trivandrum.2. By Ex. P. 1 dated 31 August 1960, the Government of Kerala referred the following matters for adjudication to respondent 2 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:(1) The question of pay-scales and clearness allowance.(2) Bonus.(3) Promotion according to seniority.(4) Abolition of commission system and restoration of dearness allowance Instead.(5) House-rent allowance.3. Exhibit P. 2 dated 28 December 1961 is the award of respondent 2. It was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 30 January 1962. The petition challenges the validity of Ex. P. 2 and prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the said ...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Joseph Vs. Jos and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker68
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. Defendants 3 to 5 were Directors of the 1st defendant Company. Item No. 4 in the agenda of the annual general meeting of that Company held on 23-3-1961 was the election of three Directors in the place of defendants 3 to 5 who were due to retire. Defendants 3 to 5 sought re-election and it was resolved in that meeting that there should be separate elections to the three posts. The first election was to fill up the vacancy to be caused by the retirement 6f the defendant. The plaintiff was a candidate, and he contested the elections, but was defeated, and the 5th defendant was elected, Then two share-holders moved a resolution that the election of the two other Directors may be postponed. The chairman disallowed the motion. Thereafter the plaintiff was proposed as a candidate to fill up the vacancy to be caused by the retire-ment of the 3rd defendant. But the chairman ruled that he was not qualified to stand as a candidate as he was al...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Menon Vs. Assistant Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1963
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ225Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. That the principles of natural justice had been transgressed in passing Exs. P. 3 and P. 7 orders, the first by the Assistant Educational Officer, respondent 1, to this writ application, and the second, Ex. P. 7, by the appellate authority, the District Educational Officer, respondent 2 to this writ application, is the complaint of the petitioner, who has been dealt with by these two officers. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioner was functioning as the headmaster in the school, of which respondent 3 is the manager. The school is called Pathempad A.L.P. School. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 12 January 1959, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner for an alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner. After receiving his explanation, a memorandum of charges dated 21 July 1959 was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner's explanation thereto is dated 5 August 1959. Thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriakose Kurian Vs. Saramma Chacko and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker154
Raghavan, J. 1. The question involved in this appeal depends on the construction of the expression 'the Rent Control Court in Section 11 (2) (b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1959. The facts are not disputed and they may be stated. 2. The 1st respondent, the landlord, filed an application against the appellant-tenant for evicting him from a building under the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease-and Rent Control) Order 1950 on the ground that the tenant kept rent in arrears. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 16th September 1958, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, the Subordinate Judge, on 20th December 1958. The tenant filed a revision petition before the District Judge, which was also dismissed by order dated 31st March 1959. Pending revision the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance, III of 1959, came into force and the Ordinance was later on replaced by the Lease and Rent Control Act (Act 16 of 1959). The pro...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ismail Vs. Commissioner, Mattancharry Municipal Council
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker79
Velu Pillai, J.1. The questions in this writ appeal arise on the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1951. This was enacted as its preamble says, 'to give power to local authorities to impose a tax on amusements and other entertainments'. Section 3 of the Act which may be said to be the charging Section is in the following terms :'Any local authority in whose local area this Act is in force may levy a tax (hereinafter referred to as the entertainments tax) at a rate not less than ten per cent, nor exceeding twenty-five per cent, on all payments for admission to any entertainment''.Pursuant to this, the respondent, the Mattancherry Municipality, by its bye-law fixed the rater of entertainments tax at 18 3/4 per cent on all payments for admission to any entertainment. The meaning of the term 'payment for admission' is in controversy. According to the respondent it connotes whatever amount is actually paid by a person for obtaining admission to th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »