Kerala Court February 1963 Judgments
Subbarayan Chettiar, Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Varied Puthiya Veetial Che ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker157; 1964CriLJ667
Anna Chandy, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. 173 of 1952 of the Emakulam District court against the order of the District Judge,' rejecting the prayer of the appellant to prosecute the defendants who are alleged to have fabricated Ext. t letter which was used as a genuine document. 2. The suit was for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the pronote was executed as a collateral security and produced Ext. 1 letter by which the plaintiff agreed to receive payment only when 120 bundles of tobacco were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. The plaintiff repudiates Ext. 1 as spurious. The District Judge and in appeal the High Court found Ext. 1 to be not genuine. Though the District Judge and the appellate Court never thought it necessary to take any criminal action against the defendants the plaintiff applied for permission to get the defen...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Madhavan Kuttan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker232; 1964CriLJ300
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Trivandrum recommending that the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Kattakada releasing from custody the respondent who was the second accused in a murder case be quashed. The grounds stated by the learned Magistrate for the action that he took was that the accused before him had been in detention for more than fifteen days without the charge sheet being submitted and that this cannot be done under Section 167 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate was of the view that before the submission of the report by the police under Section 173 Cr. P. C., he had no jurisdiction to remand the accused to judicial custody under Section 344 Cr. P. C. 2. The view of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be correct. There are two sections in the Criminal Procedure Code which empower the Magistrate to grant time to the police in connection with the investigation of a case. Under Section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code no ...
Tag this Judgment!Chembakave Vadakkekkara Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Nellisseri Gramam Narayan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker330
C.A. Vaidiallingam, J. 1. The short but interesting question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to the effect of the striking down, as unconstitutional by this Court of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, Kerala Act 4 of 1961, on the repeal, effected by this Statute, of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, Madras Act 14 of 1930, as amended from time to time. That depends upon the construction to be placed on Article 13(2) of the Constitution.p. The question arises this way. The Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, enacted no doubt by the Madras Legislature, was in force, in what I maycompendiously call the Malabar area, and also portions of the South Kanara District which became part of the Kerala State after the States Reorganisation. Jn fact, the preamble to the Malabar Tenancy Act itself states that it is enacted for the purpose of defining, declaring etc., the law relating to landlord and tenant in the District of Malabar and certain neighbouring areas in the State of M...
Tag this Judgment!Variath Rappai and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker346; 1963CriLJ627
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a petition filed by the accused in Calendar case 74 of 1962 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Shertallai against the order of the learned First Class Magistrate splitting the charges and registering three separate cases. The charge against the accused was that on 7-3-1962 they jointly collected lime shells and removed the same in three boats without a licence in contravention of Section 3 of the Kerala Lime Shells (Control) Act XVIII of 1958 an offence punishable under Section 10 of the Act.2. The Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case filed a petition before the Magistrate that as the case involved three different transactions for which three separate trials have to be conducted, the Court might split up the charge and proceed with the trial of the accused in three separate cases. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition and split up the case and directed that the accused be proceeded against in three separate cases C. C....
Tag this Judgment!Konthan Kesavan Vs. Varkey Thomman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker206
Mathew, J.1. The revision petition has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this court as he found that there is conflict of rulings on the point which governs the decision of the C. R. P. The 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner. The decree-holder had obtained a decree for redemption of a mortgage in the Vaikom Munsiffs Court. On 23.5.1959 he filed an application in that court for execution of the decree and on 5-6-1959 that court passed an order for delivery. In pursuance to that order the property was delivered to the decree-holder on 6-6-1959.2. The petitioner alleged that he came to know of the order for delivery only on 10,8.1959 and prayed to review that order, and for re-delivery of the property. The main ground for review was that at the time when the order for delivery was passed by the court, the property which was the subject-matter of the suit had already been transferred to the territorial jurisdiction of the Shertally Munsiff s Court and t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., Trichur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR956(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acting under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has referred the following question of law for our decision :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Explanation to section 8 is not applicable in this case and that the entire interest of Rs. 44,720 earned by the assessee from securities issued by the former native States, etc., is entitled to rebate of income-tax ?'The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of section 8 of the Indian Income-tax Act as well as the notification issued by the Central Government acting under section 60A of the Indian Income-tax Act.Section 8 provides that :'The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head Interest on securities in respect of the interest receivable by him on any security of the Central Government or of a State Government, or on debentures or other securities for money issued by or on behalf of a local ...
Tag this Judgment!The Valapad Co-operative Stores Ltd. Vs. K.H. Srinevasa Iyer Brothers, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker176
K.K. Mahilw, J.1. These appeals arise from the decrees in O. S. 477 of 1955 and 495 of 1955 respectively on the me of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat. Both these cases were tried together and the evidence was taken in O.S. 477 of 1355. The Valappad (Co-operative Stores Ltd., a society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (Act VI of 1932) hereinafter called the Society is ttie cetenaant in both cases. The two suits were instituted tor recovery or money by the two different plaintiffs for the purchase of goods by the Society from them. The bills on which the claim of the plaintiff in O.S. 477 of 1955 was based are Exts. B-1 to B-3 dated 11-4-1955 and those on which claim oT the plaintiff in O.S. 495 of 1955 was based are txts. B-35 to B-37 dated 9-3-1955. The case of the plaintiffs was that the Society purchased goods from them and was Indebted for the amounts claimed in the respective plaints.2. The substantial defence raised by the defendant was that the Secretary of the...
Tag this Judgment!E.J. John, Sole Proprietor, St. George Estates Vs. Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker349
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. V.K.K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, in I.D. No. 54/59 dated 29-4-1961, and published in the State Gazette dated 27th June 1961.2. The State Government, by its order dated 4th May 1961, referred three issues for adjudication at the hands of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey viz., (a) revision or wages to Shri V. C. Kuriakose, office-writer, St. George Estates, (b) revision of wages to Shri V. Thomas, writer, St. George Estates and (c) refusal of employment to Shri v. Thomas.3. The management appears to have taken up two contentions before the Industrial Tribunal, viz., that thedispute that has been referred is an individual dispute, and not an industrial dispute, under Section 2(k) of the Indus-rial Disputes Act, and that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to Adjudicate upon the same. The second contention that appears to have been taken up by the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Morning Star Bus Service.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR927(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether the sum of Rs. 45,698 is assessable to tax under the provisions of the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessment year with which we are concerned of five members, was carrying on a bus transport business in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year.On June 1, 1955, the members of the association formed a private limited company and transferred to that company the business and assets of the association. There were no shareholders other than the members of the association, and no assets other than those transferred by the association.The written down value of seven buses transferred to the company was Rs. 24,302. Their value, however, was entered in the books of the company as Rs. 70,000. The question for consideration is whether the difference between the two figures, namely, Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswaran Nadar Chellapan Nadar Vs. Parameswaran Pillai Krishnan Na ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker297
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The short question is, can a person who has put up a building in another's land, but is not in possession thereof, be given a decree for possession? And, but for the decree of the lower appellate Court and the long and learned argument advanced in support thereof, I should have thought it unnecessary to say more than that he cannot.2. The property in suit is a piece of land, 33 cents in extent, with a house on it. The land forms part of Survey No. 1814/A of Randamada Village. The whole of the survey field which is 2.64 cents in extent belonged at one time to the family of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs claimed that the 33 cents of land in suit fell to their share in their family partition under Ext. P-3 dated 8-10-1105 M. E. (21-3-1930 A. D.). After thus getting the land, the plaintiffs built a house on it, and on 1-12-1956, they orally leased out the house to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/-; and the 1st defendant has since then been living in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »