Kerala Court August 1963 Judgments
Kizhakkethil Sulaiman S/O Avran Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker185; 1964CriLJ34
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 224, I. P. C., for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of a police constable, Govindan Nair alias Muhammad Ali at about 6 p.m., on 9-11-62 in front of the tea shop of one Mubammed examined as P. W. 7 in the case.The accused is an old offender haying his name in the K. D: register maintained at the Palghat town police station. At the Chittoor Police Station a case crime No. 123 of 1962 was registered for house breaking and theft under Sections 457 and 380, I. P. C., and Pw. 8 a Head constable attached to that station was investigating into the case. He suspected that the accused must have had some connection with the crime and was trying to get at him. His house had also been searched. Deceased Govindan Nair alias Muhammed Ali was a constable attached to the Chittoor Police station, but at the time of the occurrence was on leave and was living with his wife at Olavak...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanumathi Amma Rugmini Amma and ors. Vs. Nani Amma Kamalamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker173
Mathew, J. 1. The question referred to this Bench for decision is whether, in computing the period of limtation for an application for leave to file an appeal in forma pauperis, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the judgment can be excluded. The relevant provisions of the Limitation Act are Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 12, and they read:'Section 12(2). In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded. (3) Where a decree is appealed from or sought to be reviewed, the time requisite for obtaining a copy the judgment on which it is founded shall also be excluded.' There is a divergence of opinion among the various High Courts as to whether the provisions of Sub-section (3) apply in the case...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraj Stores, Trivandrum Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Triva ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker13; 1965CriLJ41
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J.1. The short question arising for decision is whether the ingredients of Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 read with Section 19 have been established in this case to justify the orders. Exts. P-6 and P-8 passed respectively by the first respondent, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Trivandrum, and the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin, ordering the confiscation of 540 dozens of press buttons seized from the petitioner.2. The first paragraph of Section 167 (8) is in these terms:OffencesSection of this Act to which offence hasreference.PenaltiesIf any goods, the importation or exportation ofwhich is for the lime being prohibited or restricted by or under chapter IVof this Act, be imported into or exported from India contrary to suchprohibition or restriction.18&19Such goods shallbe liable to confis-cation.The goods that are to be confiscated must be shown to be that that have been imported into India contrary to the prohibition or res...
Tag this Judgment!E.P. Eappen Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker167
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In tills writ petition Mr. S, Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the two notices, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum, evidenced by Exts. P-1 and P-2. Those two notices are both aated 20-10-1962 and have been issued under Section 22(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961. The effect of these notices is to ask the Board of Revenue, the 2nd respondent in these proceedings, to pay the amounts, which, according to the income-tax Officer, are held as amounts due to the petitioner, partner of the two firms mentioned therein, namely the Trivandrum Tobacco Combines, Trivandrum under Ext. P-1, and the Trivandrum Tobacco Corporation, Trivandrum, under Ext. P-2. 2. It will be seen that according to the petitioner he was a partner in two firms, namely Trivandrum Tobacco Combines, Trivandrum, and the Trivandrum Tobacco Corporation, Trivandrum. According to the petitioner, in respect of the arrears of income-tax stated to be due by the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!K. Seshagiri Maller and ors. Vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisitio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker92
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The short question arising for decision in these cases is whether the two notifications, Exts. P-1 and P-2 in each of these writ applications, are liable to be quashed as not being in conformity with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Before I refer to this section, it is necessary to state a few facts and extract the relevant parts of these notifications. Ext. P-1 is dated 4th December 1961 and was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 30th January, 1962. In relation to Sub-section (4) of Section 17, what is stated in Ext, P-1 is as follows :'Under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the Government of Kerala direct that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to this case.'Ext. P-2 is also dated 4th December, 1961. This waspublished in the Kerala Gazette dated 13th February,1952 and the relevant part of that notification is in theseterms :'Under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act the G...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Quilon Municipality, Quilon Vs. Harrisons and Crosfi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker25
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vai-dialingam, 'J., in O. P. No. 981 of 1960. That petition which has been allowed was by the respondent before us, Messrs. Harrisons' and Crossfield Limited, Quilon. The appellant -- the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 981 of 1960 -- is the Commissioner of the Quilon Municipality.2. The controversy relates to the assessment of the respondent to profession tax for the two half years of the financial year 1958-59. The assessment was on the basis of the proviso to Rule 18 (2) - of the Taxation Rules in Schedule II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 (M. E.}. The assessment order is Ext. B and the resolution of the Municipal Council dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the assessment is Ext. F dated the 15th March, 1960.3. Rule 18 (1) of the Taxation Rules reads as follows :'Where a company of person transacts business in any half-year exclusively in the area of a single municipality, the income of such com...
Tag this Judgment!Venkiteswara Pai Rama Pai Vs. Luis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker125
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has arisen in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of landed property, 16 acres odd in extent, belonging to the Hindu coparcenary of defendants 1 to 3. The suit was contested by the 1st defendant. On December 26, 1957 the 2nd defendant died intestate, leaving behind a widow, two daughters and two sons. As none had been impleaded as his legal representative, the 1st defendant on December 10, 1960, filed C. M. P. No. 4514 of 1960 for a declaration that the entire suit had abated, and a copy of that petition was given to counsel for the plaintiff. The same day, the plaintiff filed C. M. P. No. 4516 of 1960 stating that, though the case stood adjourned to that day for impleading the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, it was not necessary to implead any in place of the deceased as he was only a pro forma party and the 1st defendant was competent to represent the entire family in the suit. Those two petitions were d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Hajee Hassan Yacoob Sait (Decea ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR5(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 Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment of the year concerned is 1957-58 and the accounting period, 1131 M.E. or the twelve months ended August 16, 1956. The question referred is :'Whether the income derived by Geevarghese Koshy as managing trustee of Jeejambai Trust is taxable in the hands of the assessee either under section 16(1)(c) or section 16(3)(b) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 ?'Counsel for the department submits that he does not propose to depend on section 16(1)(c) and that we need consider the case only with the reference to section 16(3)(b). Section 16(3) reads as follows :'16. (3) In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included -(a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly -(i) from the membership of the wife in a firm of which her husba...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jacob Mathew and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker39
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners dispute, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by the State Government regarding admissions to the Medical and Engineering Colleges in the State.2 The order, the validity of which is challenged in these proceedings, is Ext. R-1, dated 7th June 1963, in O. P. No. 1266/1963, which, it is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, governs the matter of admissions to these institutions. According to the petitioners, but for the reservations made in the impugned order, they would have been entitled to admission in respect of the colleges for which they had applied. According to them, as a result of the reservations made by the said order, students who have obtained lesser percentage of marks have been admitted; and the petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that they have got higher number of marks, have no...
Tag this Judgment!The Southern India Tea Estates Co. Ltd., Alleppey Vs. the Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker146; [1964]51ITR47(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. This is a reference fey the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, The assessment year concerned is 1960-61; and the accounting period, the twelve months ended 29-2-1960, The question referred is:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee company is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 12,873/- being the wealth tax paid during the account year ended 29-2-1960, against the profits and gains of its business for the assessment year 1960-61 under Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act'?2. The liability to pay wealth tax arises from the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The substantive provisions of that Act are Sections 3 to 7. Of these, Section 3 is the charging section, it follows closely the language adopted for the charge of income-tax in Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and reads as follows:'Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged for eve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »