Kerala Court February 1964 Judgments
The Traco Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Alexander Palathinkel and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ker273
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 101(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for confirmation of a resolution for reduction of share capital. But there is here, in truth, no resolution' to be confirmed. For, admittedly, at the general meeting at which the special resolution is said to have been passed, only two members of the company were present in person whereas under Article 13 of its articles, 'three members personally present shall be a quorum for the General Meeting of the share-holders.'This article, read with Section 174(1) of the Act (the effect of which fatter provision is to make the requirement statutory and not merely contractual) makes it quite clear that a general meeting at which less than three members are personally present is not a meeting at all for want of the required quorum.2. It is however argued that the article in question refers only to the annual general meeting and does not apply to an extraordinary general meeting such as the meeting at w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and Another Vs. Balakrishna Menon.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR775(Ker)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. S. MENON C.J. - The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the assessment made on the assumption that the assessee is an undivided Marumakkathayam tarwad is justified or no The assessment is under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, and the assessment year concerned is the financial year which ended on the 31st March, 1962. The contention of the appellants - the State of Kerala and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode - is that the assessment is justified, and that the conclusion to the contrary in the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.It is common ground that even though there has been a preliminary decree for partition, the properties of the tarward have not yet been divided by metes and bounds. It is also clear that the tarward has hitherto been assessed as undivided, and that those assessments have become final.Sub-section (1) of section 29 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (omitting the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Saithu Mohammed Vs. Mammi Abdul Khadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker110
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The 8th defendant has filed this appeal against the decree in a suit to set aside a summary order. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit, and the 8th defendant is one of the legal representatives of the 1st defendant. The property involved in this suit consists of an area of 95 cents in two survey numbers I47/24-A and 147/24-B. The property belonged to one Ayyappan Krishnan. He executed a usufructuary mortgage on 31-11-1088 in favour of Meera Unni, the father of the 1st defendant. EXt. C is the copy of the mortgage. It was for Rs. 1,470/-. One Kuruvilla Ouseph obtained a decree in S. C. S. 172/1088 against Ayyappan Krishnan and in execution of the decree attached the property and purchased the same in court auction on 26-12-1100. The auction-purchaser applied for delivery of the property. 2. An obstruction was filed by Meera Unni, tha mortgagee, to the delivery of the property. Therefore,on 23-7-1103 the auction-purchaser filed an application for rem...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Sachitanand Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC495(Ker)
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner K. B. Prabhu alias Swami Sachitanand has been convicted for an offence under Section 19(b) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125-shortly stated as the Act-for failure to pay the balance of sales tax due for the year 1956-57 and he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75. The accused has also been ordered to pay Rs. 1,815-84 nP. being the arrears of sales tax. P-W. 1 is the Sales Tax Officer, Badagara. He has deposed that Shrishaila Industrial and Spiritual Colony Charities, Kadalur-hereinafter referred to as the charities-is the assessee. That society was assessed to pay sales tax of Rs. 2,580-12 nP., and the balance amount due on 8th March, 1958, was Rs. 1,836-26 nP. Exhibit P. 1 is the assessment order. P-W. 2 the peon served the demand notice on one Ramadas for and on behalf of the charities. As the amount was not paid, the accused who is said to be a quondam member of the charities was prosecuted. The accused contended that he was not the reg...
Tag this Judgment!R. Souri Rajalu Naidu Vs. Kothandarama Naidu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker122
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. These two appeals arise from L. A. 0.930/1958 and 929/1958 respectively. The question for consideratton in ttrase two appeals is the same, namely, whetter respondent No. 2 or 3 in the trial court is entitled to tho tenant's share of the compensation for the acquisition in respect of the properties comprised In. thesetwo cases. Rajagopal Naidu, the father of respondents 2 and 3 had a leasehold interest in a property and portions of that property were acquired in these cases. Rajagopal Naidu had executed a will on 5th December 1947. That was art unregistered will and under that will he has devised his leasehold interest in the property to the 2nd res-pondent. Ex. B. 36 is that will. The 3rd respondent claim-sd the same property under a registered will executed by his father on 15th October 1951 and that is marked as Ex. B-37 and his case was that his father did not execute Ex. B-36, that Ex. B-36 was a concocted document and that in any event it was revoked by Ext. B-3...
Tag this Judgment!S. Velappan Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker72; 1965CriLJ296
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This reference by the learned SessionsJudge of Trivandrum arises out of an application made bythe petitioner S. Velappan to quash the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Ttivandrim. The petitioner was arrested bythe Sub-Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor in execution of awarrant issued by the Bench of Magistrates, Moradabadagainst the proprietor, Kathirvel and Co., Puthenchanthai,Trivandrum. He was arrested and produced before the Sub-Magistrate, Trivandrum-2 and as the offence charged w?sone under Sections 417 and 420 I. P. C., both bailableoffences, the learned Magistrate released him on basis oftaking a bond for his appearance before the Bench Magistrate's Court, Moradabad on 21-8-63, to which date thecase stood posted for hearing. The petitioner's case isthat the warrant directed the arrqst of the proprietor,Kathirvel and Co., Trivandrum, that it does not mentioneither the name or the description of the person to bearrested, that he is not the proprietor of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Kilimanni Abu and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ557
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Kozhi-kode in Sessions Case 84 of 1962. Criminal Appeal 117 of 1963 is by the first accused; criminal appeal 103 of 1963 is by the second accused and criminal appeal 105 of 1963 is by accused 3, 4 and 5. Accused 1 to 5 were convicted each under Section 120B(1), I. P. C,, criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, but no separate sentence was awarded. Accused 3 to 5 were convicted under Section 392 and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted for abetment of forgery under Section 392 read with Section 120B(1), I. P. C., and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. In addition accused 3 to 5 were also convicted and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively under Section 461 read with Section 34, I. P. C., and under Section 342 read with Section 34, I. P. C. Accused 1 and 2 wer...
Tag this Judgment!Aley W/O Korathu Vs. Vappu Kakkaru and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ker256
K.K. Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree in a suit for contribution. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The plaint property and certain other properties belonged to one Narayanan and others. They executed a simple mortgage to one Sankara Pilial in respect of them. Subsequently they mortgaged these properties to one Kesavan Namboodiri. Sankara Pillai, the Ist mortgagee obtained a decree on the mortgage in O. S. No. 982/1097 of the Muvattu-puzha Munsif's Court, and in execution of that decree purchased the properties. Kesavan Namboodiri was not a party to that suit. He obtained a decree in O.S. 337/1109 for the amount due to him under the subsequent mortgage. The prior mortgagee Sankara Pillai was a party to his suit. Sankara Pillai sold some of the properties purchased by him in execution of the decree to the mother of defendants 1 and 2 under Ext. P 2. The remaining properties were sold by Sankara Pillai to one Raman Pillai and by successive assignme...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Guptan Vs. Madhava Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker95
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal by the second defendant arises in a suit by the respondent to recover possession, of the property in Schedule B which is a part: of the property in Schedule A of the plaint, on the basis of title. In view of the findings of the two courts on title and possession which are concurrent, I do not think., if necessary to state the facts in detail. The respondent claimed the property in Schedule A under Ext. A2, his earliest document of title of the year 1921, while the appellant claimed the property under Ext. B-8, his earliest document of title of the year 1929. At the trial, the commissioner furnished the plan Ext. C-2 and the report, to which both parties objected. Upon this, The court-issued a second commission which produced the plan Ext. C1 and the report Ext. C6. The two courts have relied on Ext. C1 plan, though as the Munsif has remarked, in their arguments before him, counsel relied on both plans. An objection was raised before the Subordina...
Tag this Judgment!Mayankanakath Muthamodkutty Haji Vs. Edasseri Moideenkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker174
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree in a suit for recovery of possession or a building mentioned in the plaint schedule with arrears of rent on the basis of a registered coollcharthu, Ext. A 1, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a notice on 28-10-1957 terminating the lease from 14-11-1957 and demanding surrender of possession of the building. The defendant raised two contentions but the only contention with which I am now concerned is the one raised by him as regards the validity of the notice to quit. His other contention was that the registered coollcharthu on which the suit was based was not valid and binding on him and that he was holding the building and property under an oral tenancy on an agreement to pay Rs. 20/- and 5 paras of paddy per year.2. The trial court found that the defendant was holding the property and the building under the oral tenancy set up by him, that Ext. A 1 coolicharthu was not binding ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›