Kerala Court March 1963 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. K.P. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC874(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. These appeals raise a common question as to whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the orders of assessments, four in number, passed by the assessing authority and if he had jurisdiction, he had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in passing the orders in question.2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction because the necessary notification empowering him to act Under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act had not been made. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge who heard the writ applications and he, therefore, quashed the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The State has appealed from those orders. In view of Act XIV of 1962 which amended the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (which is the Act with which we are now concerned) conferring retrospective jurisdiction on the revisional authority and in view of our decision in T.R.C. No. 25 of 1962 Printed at page 877 infra., the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathu Rawther S/O Athar Rawther and anr. Vs. Sreekrishna Bank Through ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker90
Mathew, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, viz., respondents 1 and 2 in E. A. 812/1960 S. C. S. 865/1955 on the file of the Munsif's Court, Palghat, are the revision petitioners. This revision is directed against an order of the Court below impleading the petitioners and the 2nd respondent in the civil revision petition as the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor. The 1st respondent had obtained a decree against one Abdul Razack Rowther on 28-11-1955. He died on 24-11-1956. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 546 of 1957 praying for the arrest of the judgment-debtor.Notice of that application was returned with the report that the judgment-debtor was dead, butno attempt was made to implead his legal representatives. Therefore that E. P. was dismissed on 12-3-1957. The decree-holder then filed E. A. 12/1960 on 15-7-1960 against some of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor praying for transfer of the decree to the original side so as ...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Potteries (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker18
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J. Ranganatha Kamath, learned counsel, challenges the demand made by the third respondent herein under Ext. P-1, dated 23rd May 1961.2. The circumstances under which this demand has been made may be briefly indicated. The petitioner company is a manufacturing concern, manufacturing, according to them, stoneware Glazed articles like Pickle Jars and other varieties of glazed stoneware jars, in their factory at Chalakuty, Kerala State. The demand Ext. P-1 itself is one calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3669.94 towards excise duty in respect of stoneware jars stated to have been removed by the petitioner company without payment of excise duty from the factory from 1-3-1961 to 30-4-1961.3. The Finance Bill, No. 10 of 1961, was introduced in the Parliament on 28-2-1961. The Bill was to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 1961-62. Under Clause 11 of...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Harihara Iyer Vs. Mathew George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker187
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The appellant contracted to give and the respondent to accept, for a consideration of Rs. 10,080, the assignment of a decree which the former had obtained. On the date of the contract, the appellant was paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as part of the consideration, and more than three months later another sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also similarly paid. Alleging default on the part of the appellant, the respondent has sued the appellant to enforce repayment of the sum of Rs. 2,000/- which he paid. The appellant pleaded, that the respondent had committed breach of contract in not taking the assignment which the appellant was still prepared to give. The two courts have found that the respondent had committed a breach and yet have decreed the suit holding that the appellant's remedy lay in damages against the respondent.2. In this appeal the learned counsel first attempted to establish, that the payment made by the respondent was in the nature of a deposit by way of earnest or of...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohammed Vs. K.C. Raman and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ100
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the first informant against the order passed by the Sub Magistrate of Mukundapuram in C. C. 749 of 1961 refusing to allow the examination of two witnesses on the side of the prosecution.2. The case was that the petitioner was assaulted by respondents 1 to 5 on the evening of 124-1961. The case was investigated by the Sub Inspector and charge sheet was filed. Pws. 1 to 6 were examined. Then a report was made that the Circle Inspector who had actually questioned two of the prosecution witnesses be examined as an additional witness. The prayer was allowed and the Circle Inspector of Police was examined as Pw. 7. The case was then adjourned to 6-12-61 for the examination of the Sub-Inspector of Police, the Head Constable and the Medical Officer.On 6-12-61 both the Police Officers and the Doctor were absent. On that day the Circle Inspector who happened to be in Court endorsed that he was giving up the two police officers and th...
Tag this Judgment!ittiavira Thomas Vs. Sankaranarayanan Kesavan Nampori of Manakkattu an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker144
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. By Ext. P-1, dated 13th Vrischikam 1120 W. E. (28th November 1944) one Raman Namboodiri, the Karnavan of a Namboodiri joint family illom as it is called governed by the Travancore Malayala Brahmin Act, III of 1106 (which has been inaccurately referred to by the courts below as the Namboodiri Act) granted the suit property, a piece of Illom land, 47 cents in extent, (and worth, according to the evidence of the 1st defendant himself about Rs. 1,000) on kanom to the 1st defendant for a sum of Rs. 50 and a michavaram of Rs. 8 a year. Two years later, on 30th Makaram 1122 M. E. (12th February 1947), the 1st defendant assigned the kanom to the 2nd defendant and put the latter In possession.Ramaa Namboodiri died on 12th July 1951, and on 22nd September 1952, Kesavan Namboodiri the succeeding karnavan (who now figures in the suit as the 1st plaintiff) brought the present suit professedly on behalf of the illom, in his capacity as Karnavan thereof, for a cancellation of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›