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.
P. Kunhikrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker149
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. This is an, application for the issue of the appropriate writ to call for the records leading to Ext. P 4 order and for quashing the same. The petitioner P. Kunhikrishnan Nair was a Panchayat Assistant of the Narlpetta Panchayat. He had applied for appointment as a Panchayat Executive Officer, and the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Kozhikode, by his order dated 3-2-1962, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext. P1, appointed the petitioner provisionally to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer of Kunnummel Panchayat. The relevant portion of Ext. P1 order is as follows :'The candidate is specially informed that the appointment now made is purely temporary and it will not confer on him any right or claim for continuance or future appointment in Government service but he will be entitled only to the emoluments attached to the post and he will be reverted to his original post in case he is not selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission'.The petitioner w...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kerala Vs. Harrison and Crossfield Ltd., Q ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker209; [1964]54ITR587(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 27(1)of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Three assessment years are covered by the reference. They are 1957-58, 1953-59 and 1959-80.2. The questions referred are worded as follows:Assessment year 1957-58; -- Whether in the circumstances and on the tacts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowingdeduction from net taxable wealth of (a) provisions for payment of taxes, (b) reserve in respect of a shipping claim and (c) provision for lay off compensation in a tile works ?Assessment year 1958-59: -- Whether in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowingdeduction from net taxable wealth of (a) provisionfor payment of taxes, (b) reserve in respect of ashipping claim, (c) provision for lay off compensationin a tile works, (d) furlough reserve at Quilon,(e) furlough reserve of Calcutta, (i) staff retirement gratuity reserve, and (g) special passage reserve ?Assessment ye...
Meerasahib Muhammed Kunju Vs. Padmanabha Iyer Harihara Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker28
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal by the second defendant arises in a suit to recover the balance of consideration under a sale deed Ext. P. 5, upon a cheque Ext. P. 1, given therefor by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, being dishonoured. A charge on the suit property sold under Ext. P. 5 was also claimed, in addition to a decree against the first defendant personally. Ext. P. 5 is dated the 21st February, 1951, and, Ext, P. 1 bears the date the 24th March 1951. The second defendant who had taken a simple mortgage, Ext. D. 1 dated the 12th December 1951 for the suit property and others from the first defendant, contested the suit, on the ground that Ext. P. : was not towards the balance of the consideration for Ext. P. 5, that even if it was so, the claim for such balance must be held to be satisfied upon the cheque being accepted and that being a transferee without notice of the non payment of the consideration, the property in his hands could not be made liable. ...
Mariam Vs. Narayanan Thrathar Nambooripad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker55
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal arises outof a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 94. 8. 6 paidby the plaintiff by way of land tax to Government, for the suit property for the years 1120 to1131. The pattah for the property was in thename of the plaintiff, but the property was in possession of one Poranchu from the year 1060. Heassigned his rights by Ext. D7 in the year 1119to the first defendant. In that year; the plaintiffsued the first defendant and her husband the seconddefendant. In O. S. 208 of 1119 for recovery of thesuit property, alleging that it was an accession tothe adjoining property mortgaged by the plaintiff;the suit was ultimately dismissed by the CochinHigh Court, by Ext. D.3 judgment. The plaintiff sued them again in O.S. 103 of 1124, allegingthat the property was held by them on oral lease;that suit also was ultimately dismissed by theHigh Court, so far as the suit property was concerned, by Ext. D.4 judgment. The plaintiff, having paid land tax in the meanwhile f...
Raghava Kurup Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker44
Govinda Mendn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the second Additional Sessions Judge of Trivandrum, for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The case against him was that he stabbed to death Sukumara Kurup-at about 12 noon on 24-8-63.2. The accused and the deceased are relations and the deceased was for some time staying with the father of the accused. Close to the accused's house there lived a harijan family including Pws. 4, 5 and 6 examined in the case. The accused it is stated was having illicit intimacy with one of the girls Pw. 4. About two years before the occurrence he gave up the relationship, married and had a child. After the accused ceased to have any connection with Pw. 4 deceased Sukumara Kurup became intimate with her. It is the prosecution case that because of this the accused and deceased were on inimical terms. The prosecution also suggested another motive. It is stated that the ...
Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation Vs. P. Narayanan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ164
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Food Inspector of the Calicut Corporation against the two respondents who had been prosecuted for exposing for sale misbranded adulterated aerated water punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Pw 1 one of Food Inspectors attached to the Calicut Corporation, has deposed that on 19-10-62 he visited Ravi Soda Factory owned by the second accused and found the first accused exposing for sale 24 bottles of orange crush among other things. He purchased 8 bottles and paid its price under a cash bill Ex. P1. The articles were duly sampled and sent to the Public Analyst. Ex, P3 is the certificate which shows that the sample contained artificial sweetener, saccharine, in partial replacement of sugars and he expressed his opinion that it was adulteration.2. When questioned the first accused stated that the soda factory is run by himself and that the second accused had nothing to do with the business. He conten...
Mullaveettil Saidumammad's Children Abdurahiman and Ors. Vs. Mundoli A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker225
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. This second appeal by defendants 2 to 8, arises in a suit for the restoration of possession of property to the plaintiff--1st respondent, who may be referred to as the respondent, which was taken delivery of from him in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 369 of 1944. The property belonged to one Seethikutty and on partition in his family fell to the share of hie son Syed Mammad. The appellants and the first defendant are his legal representatives. As landlords, they sued the respondent-tenant in O. S. No. 369 of 1944 for eviction under the Malabar Tenancy Act, alleging that the property was needed for their own cultivation. The suit was decreed and in execution, the property was delivered to them on the 6th September, 1945. The respondent has now sued the appellants and the first defendant, alleging that collusively and with intent to detest him, they have transferred the property under two karjoni deeds, lists. A-4 and A-5, on the 31st November, 1950, to defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›