Kerala Court June 1964 Judgments
income-tax Officer, Kozhikode Vs. Swamy Satchidanand and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR128(Ker)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. S. MENON C.J. - This is an appeal by the Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, against the decision of Govindan Nair J. in O.P. No. 475 of 1962. The question for determination is whether the respondents are liable to pay the income-tax assessed on the Shrishaila Industrial and Spiritual Colony Charities for the assessment yeas 1950-51 to 1957-58.The Shrishaila Industrial and Spiritual Colony Charities is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and has been assessed as an association of persons. The registration of the society was on June 1, 1949 and it is common ground that the respondents were members of the society at the time relevant to the assessments with which we are concerned.According to the department there has been a discontinuance of the business of the society and the learned judge has directed that question should be investigated by the Income-tax Officer as far as the assessment year 1957-58...
Tag this Judgment!Cheriyan Ittycheria and anr. Vs. Ouseph Varughese and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker154
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This Second Appeal by defendants 1 and 2, is directed against the decree of the Additional District Judge allowing the suit for the realisation of Rs. 300/- alleged to Rave been advanced by the first plaintiff on a usufructuary mortgage Ext. 1 dated the 21st Medom, 1123, in reversal of the decree of the Munsiff dismissing the suit. The mortgage was for a consideration of Rs. 3000/- of which Rs. 100/- was recited as having been paid in cash, Rs. 200/- was reserved for payment to Pw.1 and the balance of Rs. 2700/- was reserved for payment to the second defendant on a receipt to be passed by defendants 1 and 2. It was the case of the plaintiffs, that the sum of Rs. 300/- covered by the first two recitals was paid, and that the balance was not paid because the first plaintiff was not put in possession of the property. The first plaintiff assigned his rights to tne second plaintiff. The second defendant contended, that there was no payment whatever under Ext. I, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mathevan Bhargavan Vs. Dadi Bivi Halima Bivi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker29
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1.The sole question for decision in this second appeal by the 9th defendant, judgment-debtor, is whether the execution of the decree, which was for redemption of a mortgage, is barred by limitation or not. The decree of the first court was passed on the 8th July, 1949, and a petition for its execution was made on the 16th August, 1950. Pending the appeal which was preferred against the decree, the proceedings in execution were stayed by the appellate court by order dated-the 13th September, 1950. That appeal was eventually dismissed with costs on the 7th March, 1952. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 who arc the additional decree-holders and are respondents : to 3 in this second appeal, applied to the execution court on the 20th September, 1956, for proceeding with the execution of the decree, on the basis of the execution petition of 1950. The appellant objected contending that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation, for the reason, that the appellate decree was not e...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakambal Vs. Lakshmikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker219
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal is directed against a preliminary decree for partition of a half share of the suit properties for the plaintiff, passed bythe District Judge, Palghat, reversing the decree of the Munsiff, Alathur, dismissing her suit. The properties belonged to one Subramanya Pattar, a brah-min, a non-marumakkathayee. In the year 1082, he married the plaintiff's mother Kalliani Amma, a marumakkathayi woman who lived in Trichur in the former Cochin State, and the plaintiff was born in the year 1084. The properties are situated in Palghat district which formed part of the former Presidencyof Madras, and later of the State of Madras as it was before the reorganisation of States. Subramanya Pottar's marriage with Kalliani Amma was dissolved in the year 1087 and afterwards he married the first defendant, a woman of his own caste. He died in the year 1129.The plaintiff's claim to a half share is based on Section 30 of the Madras Marumakkathyam Act, 1932, the relevant p...
Tag this Judgment!Health Inspector, Badagara Municipality Vs. Puzhakkal Kelappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker31; 1965CriLJ42
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. Cr. M. P. 73 of 1964 is a petition under Section 417(3), Cri. P. C., for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. The petition has been presented admittedly after the period prescribed and a petition Cr. M. P. 74 of 1964 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition. It is alleged that the delay was occasioned purely because of a bona fide mistake committed by the Advocate for the petitioner. 2. The question that arises for decision is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under Sub-section (3) to Section 417, Cri. P. C. There was divergence of opinion about the matter among the various High Courts. But in the case in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, (AIR 1964 SC 260) the Supreme Court held that the provisions contained in Section 417(3) supplemented by the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limit...
Tag this Judgment!Kochappu Vs. Ammu Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker103
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal is directed against a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal allowing redemption of a mortgage, In reversal of the decree passed by the Additional Munsiff dismissing the suit. The plaintiff alleged, that the property in suit was given on mortgage to one Koyammad in the year 1052 M. E. for720 puthens and 195 1/2 parahs of paddy, the right under which became vested in the defendants. The first defendant contended, that the mortgage to Koyammad was tons before the year 1052, that the mortgagee subsequently became full owner of the property by lapse of time, that from the mortgagee, he and his father purchased the property and that the plaintiff has no right to redeem. The Munsiff dismissed the suit finding the mortgage to be not proved, and the Judge gave the decree, holding that the plaintiff has adduced prima facie proof of the mortgage the defendants not having produced the mortgage deed, and that the mortgage has been acknowledged.2. E...
Tag this Judgment!A.P.K. Kaliappa Nadar Vs. Kathayee Cotton Mills Ltd., Alwaye and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker14
Joseph, J. 1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was for the following reliefs: (i) a declaration that the decrees and execution proceedings in O. S. No. 82 of 1950 of the District Court of Parur and O. S. No. 3 of 1122 of the same Court (O. S. No. 2 of 1122 of the High Court of Travancore) were obtained fraudulently and collusively with the object of defeating creditors of the Alwaye Textiles Ltd. and that the same were not valid or binding on the company, (ii) that the decree and execution proceedings in O. S. No. 278 of 1950 be set aside and that the first plaintiff be permitted to recover possession of the properties in the schedule appended to the plaint; and (iii) for an injunction restraining defendants 1, 4 and 5 from alienating or encumbering the properties in schedule A and the moveables therein. Originally there were three plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was the official liquidator of the Alwaye Textiles Limited. The second plaintiff was a creditor of the company, ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. Income Tax and Sales Tax, South Zone, Qui ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker71; [1964]15STC615(Ker)
1. This petition by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon, is directed against the decision of the Sales lax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Tribunal Appeal No. 428 of 1962. That decision is tothe effect that the respondent, the Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Limited, Alleppey, is not a dealer as defined in Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, In respect of its sales of rubber and that those sales arenot as a result liable to taxation under the said enactment.2. The definition of the expression 'dealer' as given in Section 2(b) of the Act reads as follows :' 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods and includes a Government which carries on such business',It is common ground that all that the company does is to convert the latex tapped from its rubber trees into sheets and effect a sale of those sheets to its customers. The sole question for determination is whether in these circumstances the company can be co...
Tag this Judgment!Mammathu and ors. Vs. Kathijumma Umma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker207
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal relates to the reservations to be ordered in a partition suit between Mohammedan co-owners concerning a room, a cocoanut bin, a cattle shed and the compound wall alleged to have been constructed and a well alleged to have been dug, by two of them, defendants 3 and 4. Under a partition deed Ex. B. 1 dated the 20th September, 1930, the house and land sought to be partitioned, which were described in it as a house, two cattle sheds and a courtyard, were left in common. In the partition deed Ex. A-1, dated the 13th January, 1954, the description was in greater detail. The plea was that in the event of partition being allowed, the reservations may be made in favour of defendants 3 and 4. The Munsiff accepted the plea as regards the room and the bin, but not the others. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and defendants 2 to 7 who are the appellants here preferred a memorandum of objections. The District Judge while affirming the findings of M...
Tag this Judgment!Elixir Plantations Ltd., Kottayam Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker210
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question referred is 'whether the amount of Rs. 68,000/- was correctly brought to tax.'2. The statement of the case, in its paragraph 2,reads :--'The assessee purchased a Coffee Estate known as 'Greenfield' Estate in Coorg in 1958. During the accounting year 1959-60) relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee sold certain dead and wind-fallen Avenue Trees for a sum of Rs. 68,690 and credited it in the profit and loss account under miscellaneous receipt in Greenfield Estate. Of this, rupees 68,000 was the amount received from a firm called Malankara Timbers, a registered Partnership.'It is clear from the above statement that the sum of Rs. 68,000 which is the subject-matter of reference, is part of the sale-proceeds of dead and wind-fallen, avenue trees cut and removed from the Estate, which were purchased a year or two before the transaction. If the trees, are dead and windfallen it is certain that no future growth out of them is possible. The princip...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »