Kerala Court July 1964 Judgments
A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., Alleppey Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker74; [1966]59ITR499(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is;'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to takeproceedings under Sec. 34 and make re-assessments for1954-55 and 1956-57 and whether the re-assessments madeby the Income-lax Officer are valid?'2. The accounting period for 1954-55 is the calendaryear 1953 and the accounting period for 1956-57 is theCalender year 1955. Thie original order of assessment for1954-55 is dated 31-12-1954 and the original order of assessment for 1956-57 is dated 26-6-1957.3. The Income-tax Officer treated the assesses as a dealer in shares. So did the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee then took up the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal; and the Tribunal confirmed the decision that the assessee should be assessed in respect of his transactions in shares as a dealer therein. It also said...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar Vs. the District Collector and Ex-officio Ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker62
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The writ applicant is an assessee to Income-tax and I find from the records of the case that he has been assessed for a considerable number of years now. It is stated that arrears to the extent of Rs. 24,58,185.48 p. is due from the petitioner. In an attempt to rolled the fairly large amount, a notice Ex. P-1. in Form No. I. T. CP125, was issued to the petitioner pursuant to Rule 73 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. This notice stated:'You are hereby required to appear before the undersigned on the 11th day of January 1963 in this office at 11 A.M. and to show cause why you should not be committed to the Civil Prison in execution of the said certificate.'2. The petitioner did not appear to show cause on the 11th but approached this Court on the 7th of January, 1963 and obtained an order of stay of operation of further proceedings pursuant to the notice Ex. P-1. The order of stay was passed on the 9th of January, 1963.3. The petitioner's counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker84; (1966)IILLJ647Ker
1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 7 -- P. C. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar -- and the petitioner in O. P. No. 459 -- K. P. Radhakrishna Menon -- are both Deputy Collectors in the service of the Kerala State. They were formerly Deputy Collectors in the Madras State and came to this State on its formation on 1-11-1956. Their main complaint, as it finally emerged at the hearing, relates to their non-inclusion in the list of candidates eligible for selection to the Indian Administrative Service. The non-Inclusion was on the ground that they did not possess the eight years' qualifying service required by regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promo-tion) Regulations, 1955.2. Both the petitioners had requested that their fullservice, including 'temporary' service, as Deputy Collectors should be taken into account in the calculation of their quafifying service. (Temporary, in the special sense of theMadras rules, i.e., service rendered on appointment under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadharan Pillai Vs. Sales Tax Officer (Reserve)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC578(Ker)
1. An assessee assessed to sales tax for the year 1961-62 has filed this writ application and challenges the order exhibit P-2 passed by the second respondent, refusing to entertain the appeal that was taken by the petitioner from the order of assessment, exhibit P-1.2. Exhibit P-1 order of assessment was served on the petitioner on 18th February, 1963. He presented an appeal petition before the 2nd respondent on 4th March, 1963. He also moved this Court in O.P. No. 630 of 1963 challenging the very same assessment order and sought a stay of the collection of tax. This Court, by order on C.M.P. No. 2066 of 1963 in O.P. No. 630 of 1963, granted interim stay on 22nd March, 1963, subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay Rs. 600 towards the tax assessed, before 30th June, 1963. The writ application as well as the Civil Miscellaneous Petition were disposed of on 26th June, 1963, with a direction that the stay of collection of the balance of tax will continue till the disposal of...
Tag this Judgment!Provident Fund Inspector, Quilon Vs. Kerala Janatha Printers and Publi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker130; 1965CriLJ555; [1965(10)FLR100]
Raghavan, J.1. In these appeals the parties are the same and the question involved is also the same. They may therefore be disposed of by a common judgment.2. We shall now state the facts of the first case. The Provident Fund Inspector, Quilon filed a complaint against the Kerala Janatha Printers and Publishers (P) Ltd., Trivandrum and K. Krishna Pillai, the Managing Director of the above company, alleging that they did not pay the contribution and administrative charges for the months of June, July and August, 1960 under the Employees Provident Funds Scheme of 1952 and that they were therefore liable for punishment. The said establishment was started on 25th January 1957, and the establishment started employing more than twenty but less than fifty persons a day from May 1960. It is also not disputed that the establishment was brought under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the Scheme framed thereunder from 31st May 1960.3. The Employees' Provident Funds Act was passed in 1952; an...
Tag this Judgment!ismail and Co., Mattancherry Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker237
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The petitioner in this case,--Ismail & Co., Mattancherry, Cochin,--is a partnership concern engaged in the business of exhibiting cinematographic films at Mattancherry in the theatre called 'Star Theatre'. The petitioner's case is that for the successful exhibition of films in its theatre, advertisement about the films exhibited is necessary and that without advertisement it is impossible to carry on its business successfully and that the advertisement tax which is going to be imposed by the respondent Municipality is really a tax on its calling and cannot exceed the maximum of Rs. 250/- prescribed by Article 276(2) of the Constitution.2. Section 126 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, Act 14 of 1961, hereinafter called the Act, authorises the levy of a tax on advertisements from persons who erect, exhibit, fix, or retain upon or over any land any advertisement calculated at such rates and in such manner and subject to such exemptions as the Council may decide with app...
Tag this Judgment!Punnakkal Konnu's daughter Ammu Vs. thekkekara Kunhunni's son Krishnan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker32
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. Kamppan alias Devarajan, the brother of the plaintiff, first 'married the 1st defendant; and he executed two mortgages in her favour. Subsequently he married the 8th defendant, the daughter of the 7th defendant, and begot the 9th defendant. He executed a will bequeathing his properties in moieties to the 8th and 9th defendants and the 7th defendant respectively. A few months after he cancelled that will and executed another will, whereby he bequeathed half of his properties to the 8th and 9th defendants and the other half to the plaintiff. A few days thereafter he died; and subsequent to his death, the plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the two mortgages in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant raised several objections; but both the lower Courts decreed the suit for redemption. The 1st defendant comes up in second appeal.2. One of the questions mooted before the lower Courts as well as before me is whether the 1st defendant was validly divorced. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadharan Pillai Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1964
Reported in: [1967]19STC289(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The order impugned in this writ application is an order provisionally fixing the sales tax payable by the petitioner for the year 1963-64. The petitioner, admittedly, had filed his returns. The Sales Tax Officer was not inclined to accept the returns and he therefore issued a notice to show cause why the turnover should not be fixed at a higher figure. To this, objection was taken by the petitioner. The Sales Tax Officer then reduced the figure of the estimated turnover as mentioned in the notice, and fixed the turnover at Rs. 71,000.2. This procedure, it seems to me, is unwarranted. Rule 15 of the General Sales Tax Rules requires that if, for any reason, the return submitted by an assessee is not acceptable to the Sales Tax Officer, he should give notice to the assessee to produce his account books to substantiate the return submitted by him. This rule has not been complied with by the Sales Tax Officer. The procedure adopted, it seems to me, is arbitrary. I do ...
Tag this Judgment!Bappani Rai Vs. Thyampanna Rai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker221
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for partition,which has been dismissed, by both the lower courts, is the appellant and the 1st defendant the contesting respondent. The short question for decision is whether the appellant is entitled to any share in the suit property.2. The suit property was originally kumki land and it was granted to datkhast to the 1st respondent. The appellant claims a share in the property on the strength of a recital in Ex. A1 of 17th April 1944, which as a partition agreement in his family, to which both the appellant and the 1st respondent were parties. The suit property did not belong to the family, but there is some recital regarding that in the document. The recital is to the effect that the sharers under Ex. Al have a right to take water from a tank in the suit property, whereon the appellant and the 1st respondent had effected improvements. Barring this recital there is no other evidence to support the case of the appellant that he has right in t...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1964
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ488Ker
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The Kerala State Electricity Board, respondent 1 in Original Petition No. 1949 of 1962, is the appellant before us. Respondents 2 to 6 in this appeal were the petitioners in that original petition. Respondent 2 in the original petition, the State of Kerala, is respondent 1 before us. There is also an intervenor. He was brought on record in pursuance of our order in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1269 of 1964, dated 23 June 1964.2. Respondents 2 to 6 and the intervenor are junior engineers in the service of the board. The junior engineers, both in the electrical wing and in the civil wing, consist of two categories of persons: those directly recruited; and those promoted from the grade of first-grade overseers.3. Respondents 2 to 6 and the intervenor belong to the category of persons promoted from the grade of first-grade overseers, and they do not possess the higher qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment. The qualifications prescribed for direct recruitme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »