Kerala Court September 1964 Judgments
Venkiteswara Iyer Harihara Iyer and ors. Vs. Skaria Joseph of Pulikunn ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker228
1. The question, common in these appeals, is, as formulated by counsel on both sides, whether a debtor who has defaulted six consecutive instalments payable under Section 4 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1988, is entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Act.2. The petitions that gave rise to these appeals were to amend the decrees concerned, under Section 7 of the Act, to accord with the provisions of the Act. It is agreed at the bar that, even on sealing down under Section 5, the debts would not be discharged and that the debtors have defaulted six consecutive Instalments payable , under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Act The contention of the debtors is that they are in spite of such default entitled to have the interests on the debts scaled down under Section 5 of the Act. The question therefore, really is whether Section 5 effects an absolute reduction of the debt or gives relief only to debtors seeking to discharge the debt in regular instalments un...
Tag this Judgment!Thomma Varkki Vs. Thomas Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker296
Govindan Nair, J.1. These appeals arise from an order passed by the Additional District Judge Kottayani on applications moved before that Court under Section 22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The execution sale in the case took place on 9-8-1116. Some eight years before that date, the first defendant died, and his legal representatives have been impleaded. Two of them are defendants 7 and 9. Defendant 7 moved C. M. P. No. 880 of 1961 for setting aside the sale which related to his property and defendant 9 moved C. M. P. No. 881 of 1981 which was for vacating the sale of his property. The applications were moved on 8-3-1981. The applications have been allowed.2. Though one of these cases is styled an 'appeal suit' and the other, a civil miscellaneous appeal', we take it that these are appeals coming under Section 23A of the Act and we treat them as such.3. The point that is taken is that there is inordinate delay in moving the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Pulikkottil Tharappan Vs. Perumbulli Manakkal Purushothaman Nambudiri
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker284
Govindan Nair, J.1. The questions arising for determination in this Civil Revision Petition are three:(a) Whether an order passed by the appellate authority functioning under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, is revisable by this Court?(b) Whether the period of one year provided by the fourth proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 should commence from the date of publication of the amending Act, (Act II of 1961) 30-1-1961? and(c) Whether an application under Section 22 of the same Act, in relation to a sale that took place after the commencement of the Act, would lie?2. The Revision petitioner moved the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry on 6-4-1961 to set aside an. execution sale which was held on 15-3-1961 for arrears of rent due from the Revision petitioner. This application was rejected and availing himself of the provision in Section 23A of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an appeal was filed before th...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, Palai Central Bank Employees' Union Vs. Official Li ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1964
Reported in: [1965(10)FLR98]; (1966)ILLJ533Ker
Raghavan, J.1. Three points are raised in this appeal against an order of our learned brother, Raman Nayar J. The first is that though Raman Nayar J. allowed some claims of the appellant, the General Secretary, Palai Central Bank Employees' Union, like dearness allowance, increments of salary, etc., those are not implemented by the respondent, the official liquidator. We do not think that this is a matter for appeal. The counsel of the respondent also assures us that the order of Raman Nayar J. on these questions will be fully implemented if there is any mistake in the implementation, or in case it is not already implemented fully.2. The second objection is that the learned judge should not have confined the compensation for termination of employment to a maximum of average pay for three months under the proviso to Sub-section (1) to Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The contention is that the winding-up of the bank was not due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the contro...
Tag this Judgment!Cherukutty Mattuvayil Chandukutty Vs. Thoyali Kurinholi Arjunan and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker128
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by an usufructuary mortgage, A decree for redemption was passed against the appellant at the instance of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on 12-3-1950. Thereafter an application was matte By the decree-holder purporting to be under: Order XXI, Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 5 and 11 of tiie Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, on 10-1-1959. This was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the application is not maintainable. The objections taken were that Section 11 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 can have no application as the section envisages the existence of a mortgage ant! there was none at the time of the application as a decree on the. mortgage had intervened. It was also urged that Section 11, in any event, cannot apply and that the correct Section, is Section 7. There was a further contention that the application which was apparently moved on the execution side is not ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Mani Vs. P.J. Mathai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker211
Vaidialingam, J.1. In this petition Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner who was the respondent in C. R. P, 26/64, asks for a certificate being issued by this court to enable hirn to challenge the decision of this court on appeal to the Supreme Court. In the application itself the prayer is to the effect that the certificate may he granted under Article 133(1)(b) & (c) of the Constitution.2. The petitioner made an application to the learned Subordinate Judge, Ernakutarn, for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the other partners with whom he was carrying on business in partnership have failed concur with the appointment of an arbitrator.3. The application filed by this petitioner no doubt, was opposed by the respondents on tha ground that Section 8(1)(a) has no application in view of the provisions contained in Clause 17 of the agreement entered into by the partners. The learned Subordinate Judge howe...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Kalikutty and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker222
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year concerned is 1960-61, and the accounting period, the Malayalam Year 1134, that is, the twelve months ended on 16-8-1959. The question referred is:'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 49288/- was assessable as profit under the provisions of Section 10 (2) (vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that 'the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profit or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried, on by him.' The relevant portion of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 is in the following terms :'(2) such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely :-- (iv) In respect of insurance agai...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramananda Prabhu Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker286; 1965CriLJ773
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to call for the records leading to Ext. P. 8 order and for quashing that order by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction so far as it relates to the imposition of the penalty of Rs, 6,500/- on the petitioner under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Act.2. The petitioner is a merchant-doing business in 'stationery in Broadway, Ernakulam, under the name and style of A. R. Prabhu and Bros. The Inspector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin, made a search o the petitioner's shop from 11 A. M. to 4 P. M. on 31-5-1963 and seized 12 items of articles and removed them to the Customs House after preparing a mahazar, a copy of which is marked Ext. P. 1. The articles so removed are articles like pencils, pen refills, etc. These were imported goods purchased by the petitioner through the normal trade channels and the purchases were supported by bills and invoices. On the same day the Inspector ...
Tag this Judgment!Koyammankutty Vs. Fourth Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode-1, a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR871(Ker)
These four writ applications relate to assessments on a firm and its partners. From the order produced in O. P. No. 2162 of 1963, exhibit P-5, it is seen that the income of the firm has been fixed at Rs. 17,923 for the accounting period which ended on March 31, 1963. The assessment year was 1963-64.On the basis of the fixation of the income and the allocation of that income to the three partners, assessment orders imposing income-tax on the three partners have been passed. These are exhibits P-6, in each of the other writ applications. The petitioner challenges the orders, exhibit P-5, in O. P. No. 2162 of 1963 and exhibit P-6, in each of the other cases.Counsel has raised many points. But the only one pressed at the time of argument was that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and also of the provision in section 142(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. To understand this contention, a few facts are necessary.A return was admittedly filed on behalf of the firm. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhipaly Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ642Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. Two questions have been raised by this writ application by the employer. By Ex. P. 5, a demand notice issued by respondenb 2, the tahsildar, Alwaye, at the instance of respondent 1, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum, a sum of Rs. 7,907.25 was claimed from the petitioner as due from him towards arrears of provident fund contribution that the petitioner had to make under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder for the period from February 1960 to March 1963. This demand, it is admitted by counsel on behalf of the petitioner, relates only to contributions to be made by the employer. This demand evidenced by Ex. P. 5 is sought to be quashed.2. The ground relied on is that certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund3 Act under which the demand is made are ultra vires the powers of the legislature. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that Sections 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »