Kerala Court July 1964 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chacko Chacko Kaithakuttu Veedu and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, State o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker46
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ applications, challenge the constitutional validity of the Luxury Tax on Tobacco (Validation) Act, 1964, (Act 9 of 1904). Actually, this is a later development in almost all of these writ applications. At the time they were filed, Act 9 of 1964 referred to above was not in the statute book. The petitions originally contained only the prayer for a direction to refund licence fees collected from the petitioners for granting the various classes of licences as envisaged by the two enactments; the Travancore Tobacco Act (1 of 1087) and the Cochin Tobacco Act (VII of 1084) and the Rules framed thereunder. This collection itself was once challenged in certain writ applications moved before this Court. The point then taken was that by virtue of Section 13(2) of the Finance Acl 1950 (Act 25 of 1950), and the extension of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 to the Travancore-Cochin State from 1950, the two enactments, the Travancorc To...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kerala, Ernakulam Vs. Travancore Cements L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker183; [1964]54ITR583(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee is the Travancore Cements Limited, Kottayam. The assessment year with which we are concerned la 1959-60; and the valuation date, 31-12-1958. 2. The question referred is:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee company was entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(xxi) of the wealth-tax Act in regard to the white cement plant? 'The relevant portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, reads as follows;'Wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assesses in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-- (xxi) that portion of the net wealth of a company established with the object of carrying on an industrial undertaking in India within the meaning of the Explanation to Clause (d) of Section 45, as is employed by it in a new and sep...
Kuttialikutty Marakkar's daughter Kizhakkiniyakath Kunhimmayumma Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker223
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The appellant sued the respondents as representing their tavazhy for redemption of Ext. A.2 puramkadom and Ext. A-4 mortgage; on payment of the amounts due under them in pursuance of Sections 8 and 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists 'Relief Act, 1958, Act 4 of 1938. The two items of (properties belonged to one Kuttialikutty Marakkar under whom the appellant claims. Item I was demisedon kanom which is evidenced by Ext, A-l the kyehit, and on puramkadom Ext. A-2, both on the 21st 'February, 1916, to the tavazhy 'of the respondents. Item 2 was given' on panayam with possession to the tavazhy under Ext. A-3 on the 16th April, 1918. 'Subsequently on the 26th March, 1923, there was a mortgage in respeet of both items 1 and 2, also infavour of the lavazhi. The appellant sought redemption of Exts. A-2 and A-4 only, having conceded in the plaint, that under the Malabar Tenancy ActExts. A-l and A-3 cannot be redeemed. The Munsiff allowed redemption of Ext. A-4, but not of Ext....
Abraham Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker175; 1965CriLJ102
Anna Chandy, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Quilon under Sections 409, 463, 467, 471 and 477A, I. P. C. for having misappropriated funds from the Adoor Bank Ltd., while he was the agent of the Bank at Pathanamthitta and was sentenced to a concurrent term of five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is as follows: --One Annamma Koshy, P. W. 1 deposited Rs. 8,000/-with the Pathanamthitta Branch of the Adoor Bank Ltd. as fixed deposit in 1951. Sometime in January 1959 the accused who was then the Agent at the Branch forged certain documents to make out that P. W. 1 had applied for and was granted a loan of Ra. 6,000/- on the security of her fixed deposit of Rs. 8.000/- and appropriated this amount for his own use. On 17-8-1959 the Adoor Bank Ltd., was amalgamated with the Bank of New India Ltd. As the accused who continued to be the agent under the new set up, failed in spite of repeated demands, to send a statement regarding the gold lo...
P.S. Subramanian Vs. S.S. Venkitadri Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker236
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. With great respect I think that Itty v. Mani, 1963 Ker L T 442 : (A I R 1984 Ker 134) was correctly decided and does not require reconsideration; and if that be so it is not disputed that this appeal must fail. In my opinion the result reached in that case can be reached on a plain reading of the statute--Section 15 (1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908--without reference, on the one hand, to such considerations as the decree-holder's unfettered right to execute his decree in any manner he chooses or of the hardships involved in the other possible views, or, on the other, of the propriety of an extension of time when the decree-holder can keep his decree alive by making applications in an unprohibited mode (whether feasible or not), a device which, in any case, would be unavailing against the twelve year rule. 2. The section does not 'speak of absolute or partial stays, and, it seems to me clear that, if there is a stay at all, it would be correct to say that e...
Thayillath Vamanan Nambudiri Vs. Ammarmankandiyil Narayana Kurup and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker1
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. The appellant in this second appeal was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 890 of 1942 of the Court of the Munsiff of Badagara. In that suit he sought and obtained the recovery of possession of an item of property under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.2. The suit was decreed on 13-9-1943 and possession was taken from the respondents on 23-10-1943. After the passing of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956, the respondents Applied for a restoration of possession by an application under Section 5(2) of that enactment: I. A. No. 101 of 1957 in O. S. No. 890 of 1942.3. The application was allowed and the appellant before us filed A. S. No. 352 of 1959 of theCourt of the Subordinate Judge of Badagara. Thatappeal did not succeed. It was dismissed on theground that no appeal was available from a decision in an application under Section 5(2) of theMalabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1556. Thissecond appeal challenges the correctness of thatdecision.4. The sole question for determina...
The Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. the Workmen of the Kannan D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker106; [1965(10)FLR216]; (1969)ILLJ483Ker
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the award made by the 2nd respondent Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act directing the reinstatement of a workman, a driver by the name of Rao, who had been discharged by the petitioner company under standing Order 19(1) of its Standing Orders which provides for what has come to be known as discharge (or termination) simplciter.2. Rao was appointed on Probation on 3-3-1959 and was deputed to drive the car of the Staff and Industrial Relations Manager of the company who gave evidence before the Labour Court as E. W. 1. He was confirmed a month later but on 5-1-1960 his services were terminated under Standing Order 19 (1) on charges -- I use the word, 'charge' as meaning any kind of imputation, not as confined to imputations of misconduct -- of bad, Indeed dangerous, driving -- faulty judgment of the width of the car leading to damage on one occasion, taking blind corners on the w...
State of Kerala Vs. M.P. Ali Meerankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker59; 1965CriLJ178
Anna Chandy, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether a person on trial for a non-cognizable offence can be acquitted under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the absence of the complainant if the case was charged by the police. The accused was charged with an offence under Rule 56(3)(b) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicle Act (a non-cognizable offence) and was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Perinthalmanna who acquitted him under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that neither the complainant (The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nattukal) nor hisrepresentative was present when the case was calledfor hearing.2. The learned Public Prosecutor takes objec-tion to this order mainly on the ground that Section 247 cannot be made to apply to a case instituted by the police.3. Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads thus:'If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed...
P.K. Varghese and Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakula ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker212
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed by the senior partner of the firm. The petitioner is doing business in rice, sugar, chillies, chemicals, paints and other goods. The petitioner applied for registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 to the Sales-tax Officer, Ernakulam. That was granted and a certificate, marked Ext. P 1, was issued in favour of the petitioner. Ext. P 1 states :'The class (es) of goods specified for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act is/are asfollows and the sales of these goods in the course ofInter State trade to the dealer shall be taxable at therate specified in that sub-section subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of the said section. (a) For sale. Provisions, rice, sugar, chillies, etc.' In the course of the assessment proceedings for the year ending 31-3-1982, the responde...
P.K. Varghese and Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC323(Ker)
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed by the senior partner of the firm. The petitioner is doing business in rice, sugar, chillies, chemicals, paints and other goods. The petitioner applied for registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to the Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam. That was granted and a certificate, marked exhibit P-1, was issued in favour of the petitioner. Exhibit P-1 states:The class(es) of goods specified for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act is/are as follows and the sales of these goods in the course of inter-State trade to the dealer shall be taxable at the rate specified in that sub-section subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of the said section.(a) For sale.Provisions, rice, sugar, chillies, etc.In the course of the assessment proceedings for the year ending 31st December, 1962, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »