Kerala Court August 1964 Judgments
The Goodland Plantations (Private) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker297; [1967]37CompCas11(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This suit, instituted in the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam has been withdrawn to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution because the constitutionality of Sub-section (10) of Section 45 of the Banking Companies Act is questioned. 2. The plaintiff was a subscriber to a fifty month, 20,000 rupees, monthly chitty run by a banking company known as the Kottayam Orient Bank, Ltd. as foreman. The conduct o the Chitty was governed by the agreement, Ex. P. 1, variola as it is called, entered into between the foreman bank and each individual subscriber, and by the provisions of the Travancore Chitties Act, the Chitties Act for short. The plaintiff prized the chitty for Rs. 11,075 at the fifth auction held on 10th December 1960--he had by then paid four instalments of Rs. 400/ each. (The plaintiff is a company but it is more convenient to use the pronoun, 'he' than 'it'). But, before he could be paid the money the Central Government granted the bank a moratorium under ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmaposhanam Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR600(Ker)
The judgment of the court was delivered byGOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, had drawn up the following statement of fact :By these applications under section 66(1), the assessee requires the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and to refer certain questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunals order in I.T. As. Nos. 11849 to 11853 of 1959-60, dated 29th October, 1962/7th Karthika, 1884, to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise and as the facts are common, a consolidated statement of the case is hereby drawn up.The assessee is a company registered under section 32 of the Cochin Companies Act, corresponding to section 26 of the Indian Companies Act. A licence dated 8th January, 1931, was issued to the company by the secretary to the Dewan of Cochin and this was as unde :'Under section 26(1) of the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913, made applicable to Cochin by his Highness ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Woodland Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR612(Ker)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred i :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the income from the sale of latex after its conversion into sole crepe was agricultural income under section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 192 ?'Section 2(1) of the Act defines the expression 'agricultural income' and section 4(3)(viii) of the Act provides that 'agricultural income' shall not be included in the total income of an assessee. The relevant portion of the definition reads as follow :'agricultural income means -(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land revenue in the taxable territories or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such...
Tag this Judgment!The Food Inspector, Trichur Municipality, Trichur Vs. O.D. Paul and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker96; 1965CriLJ445
Anna Chandy, J.1. The appellant is the Food Inspector of the Trlchur Municipality. He had filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Trichur against the respondent for having sold adulterated Jam Roll an offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act The prosecution case was that on 4-3-1963 P.W. 1 the Food Inspector purchased jam rolls kept for sale in the Star Bakery owned by the first accused and run by his son the second accused. The article of food purchased was duly sampled by P.W. 1 in the presence of two witnesses one of whom is the employee of the bakery itself. The sample was sent to the Put lie Analyst for analysis and the analyst in his certificate reported that the sample contains a non-permitted coal-tar dye and was therefore adulferated.2. The Food Inspector who purchased the jam roll gave evidence in support of the case. His evidence remains practically unchallenged. When the accused were questioned abo...
Tag this Judgment!Sreedhara Marar Raman Pillay and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker196; 1965CriLJ215
ORDERS. Anna Chandy, J.1. Accused 1 to 3 brothers, accused 4 their fattier, accused 6 their mother and accused 6 their sister have all been tried under Sections 148, 149, 326, 341 and 294B. I. P. C. by the Neduma-ngad First Class Magistrate who acquitted accused 4 to 6 of all the charges and convicted accused 1 to a under sections 326 and 324, I. P. C. The three convicted accused unsuccessfully appealed before the Trivandrum Additional Sessions Judge and are now seeking to get the order vacated in revision.2. The prosecution alleges that long-standing disputes existed, between the accused and P. W. 1 the son of the fourth accused's deceased brother Gangadnaran Pillai, regarding the title and possession of l acre and 88 cents of land. Accused 4 filed a suit against P. W, 1 and his brother and obtained a decree declaring his title to half the property and possession of the whole. Accused 4 appealed against the decree to the District Court and had obtained an injunction restraining P. W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Iyer Vs. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR145(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenges the correctness of exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-2(a) in so far as they relate to the assessment of capital gains. Exhibit P-1 is the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioner against exhibits P-2 and P-2(a). Exhibit P-2 is the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 (accounting period : the twelve months ended on March 3, 1960) and exhibit P-2(a) is the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 (accounting period : the twelve months ended on March 31, 1961).The petitioner purchased in 1959, a plot of land measuring about 57 cents with a building and some trees thereon for Rs. 67,400. He sold portions of the land in the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years with which we are concerned; and the Income-tax Officer computed the capital gains of Rs. 5,500 for the assessment year 1960-61 and...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam Vs. the Ouchterlony ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR618(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax-Act, 1922. The Assessment year is. 1959-60; and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on 3140-1958. The question referred is :'Whether, when assets are commonly used for the-production of both tea and coffee, the assessee is entitle to proportionate development rebate under Section 10 (2 (vi-b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. The assessee, the Ouchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Limited, is engaged in the cultivation of tea and coffee. It contended that it was entitled to development rebate in respect of certain assets which were used not merely in the cultivation of tea but also in the cultivations of coffee. The contention was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and the question mentioned above was referred) to this Court in pursuance of an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernahulam.3. In order to earn the rebate the conditions ...
Tag this Judgment!V. K. U. Menon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR429(Ker)
The judgment of the court was delivered byM. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred i :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Cochin Malleables (P.) Ltd. was a company in which the public were substantially interested as contemplated by section 23 ?'The question has to be resolved in the light of Explanation I to section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant portion of that Explanation reads as follow :'For the purposes of this section, a company shall be deemed to be a company in which the public are substantially interested -(a) if it is a company owned by the Government or in which not less than forty per cent. of the shares are held by the Government.....'The assessee is not a company owned either by the Central or a State Government. The only question for determination is whether it can be considered to be a company...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Electric Company Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR82(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether the assessee-company is entitled to the allowance of depreciation and development rebate in respect of that portion of the service line towards the construction of which the consumer has contributed amounts in cash ?'The assessee is the Cochin Electric Company (Private) Limited, Cochin. It is common ground that the cost of the service lines has been met in accordance with the provisions of rule 6 of annexure VI to the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The rule says :'The licensee shall lay free of charge 30.48 meters (100 feet) of service line from his nearest distribution main outside the limits of the property in respect of which the requisition is made. Any length in excess of 30.48 meters (100 feet) as defined above and the whole of the service line within the limits of the property in respect of which th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›