Kerala Court November 1965 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.
C. Joseph Mattom Vs. the Free India Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker234
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment of Raman Nayar J., in B. C. S. No. 3 of 1963 in B. C P No. 3 of 1966. The suit was by the Liquidator of the Free India Bank Ltd., (in liquidation), forrecovery of a sum of Rs. 20,861 together with interest at 9 per cent per annum, due under an Otti Ex. P-1 dated 18-2-1958 executed by the defendant in favour of the Bank. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree for the amount due on the mortgage after giving credit to the payments and set off admitted by the plaintiff, with simple interest at 9 per cent per annum upto the date of the suit and 6 per cent per annum thereafter. Suitable directions were given for appropriation of the admitted payments and set off. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The only question agitated before us in appeal is regarding the liability for interest, Raman Nayar J., held that the claim for interest fell squarely within Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 of Section 68 of the Transfer ...
Malankara Timbers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: [1967]66ITR200(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question refereed is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified refusing registration of the firm ?'The registration sought was in respect of the assessment year 1960-61. The accounting period concerned was the twelve months from April 1, 1959, to March 31, 1960.Annexure 'A' to the statement of the case is the deed of partnership. It begins by saying :'This DEED OF PARTNERSHIP is made on the First day of March, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty nine, BETWEEN Sri P. C. Cherian, Madukanil, Manganam, Kottayam of the first Part; Sri V. P. Thomas, Velajattil House, Old Bazar, Kottayam, of the second part; Sri Korah Mathew, Pulickal House, Puthenangadi, Kottayam, of the third part; Sri K. K. Itty, Kadiyanthuruthil, Puthuppally, Kottayam, of the fourth part; and Sri K. T. Kuruvilla Panda...
P. Parukutty Amma and anr. Vs. K.M. Ramanunni Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker150
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition. on behalf of the petitioners who are defendants 31 and 32. Mr. S. Subramania Iyer learned counsel challenges the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Oltapalarn in I. A. No 471 of 1965 in O. S. 65/56 on the file of that court2. From the statement of facts in the civil revision petition, it is seen that the 1st respondent to this revision petition, originally instituted the suit O. S. 65 of 1056 for partition of the suit properties, as appurtenant to the Sthanam of the 1st defendant: and that claim was made on the basis of the provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act 1955 (Madras Act XXXII of 1955) It is also seen that in that suit, the plaintiff wanted a partition of the properties after set ting aside several alienations stated to have been effected by the 1st defendant in favour of some of the parties to the suit, including the present revision petitioners The petitioners contested the c...
Neelakanda Pillai Vs. Sankaran Padmanabhan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker70
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for redemption of Ext. D-2 executed by him in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The entire rights under Ext. D-2 have now become vested in the second respondent who apart from claiming value of improvements claimed the benefit under Act I of 1957 in the Courts below.2. The lower Courts found that the transaction under Ext. D-2 is a 'holding' within the meaning of Act I of 1957 and directed the suit to be stayed though the lower appellate Court directed the trial Court to refix the value of improvements due to the respondents.3. The only point raised in the second appeal is whether the respondents are entitled to claim protection under the Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act I of 1964. This will depend upon the question whether the transaction evidenced by Ext. D-2 is a lease or mortgage.4. As indicated in the decision in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari Saran, AIR 1958 SC 941 where the question to be decided by the Court is wh...
V. K. P. Abdul Kader Haji Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: [1967]66ITR173(Ker)
The petitioner, who is a member of a Mohammedan family, which is admittedly governed by the Marumakkathayam law, has challenged the order, exhibit P-1, dated August 10, 1964, assessing the petitioner on the entire income of the group of persons of whom the petitioner is the head and who are governed by Marumakkathayam law, for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. It is clear that the order, exhibit P-1 cannot stand, for the petitioner cannot be assessed for the entire income of the family of the petitioner.Apart from this, it is urged that the benefit of section 3(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is also available in the matter of assessment of the family of which the petitioner is the head and that the assessing authority has wrongly refused to apply the section. That sub-section is in these terms :'In the case of a Hindu undivided family consisting of more than five members entitled to claim a share on partition and whose agricultural income exceeds s...
Monthly Rated Workmen of Peiree Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Labour Com ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker204; [1967(14)FLR258]
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner -- The Cochin Commercial Employees Association is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. The petitioner claims that an overwhelming majority of the monthly paid workman employed at the Cochin Office of the Fourth respondent, Messrs Pierce Leslie & Co. Limited, are members of the Association, and that for a long tome the petitioner was representing the monthly paid employees of the Company at their Cochin Office including Willing-don Island for the purpose of collective bargaining The petitioner stales that there was a settlement, between the fourth respondent and the monthly paid workmen of the Cochin office represented by the petitioner, of certain disputes in the year 1961 and that as soon as the period of the settlement was over, a notice WHS served upon the fourth respondent by the petitioner intimating the intention to terminate the settlement, and that thereafter the petitioner had served a charter of demands upon the fou...
Mrs. Ambujam Menon and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker187
Raghavan, J.1. The appellants filed a writ petition to quash a declaration by the State of Kerata evidenced by Ex. P-5 under Section 6 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act of 1089 and also four notices evidenced byExs. P-1 to P-4; and the writ petition has been dismissed by our learned brother, Madhavan Nair, J. The appeal is directed against that order.2. The relevant averments in the several affidavits filed in the writ petition, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, may now be adverted to.3. The affidavit filed on 18th June 1962 in support of the writ petition avers that the land sought to be acquired has an extent of 4.78 acres abutting the National Highway at Kalamassery with jack trees, mango trees, etc and a substantial electrified residential building built on up-to-date lines filled with modern sanitary fittings, garrage, cow-shed, water tank, etc.; that the buildings were leased to the fourth respondent. the Premier Tyres, Ltd., on a rent of Rs. 175 per mense...
Padmanabha Pillai Chellappan Pillai Vs. Ouseph Devassia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker83
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2000 on the basis of Ext. P-1 dated 23-4-1954 alleged to have been written by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The appellant denied the execution of Ext. P. 1 and also denied having received any amount from the respondent under Ext P. 1. The learned Munsiff holding that Ext. P. 1 is not genuine dismissed the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Trivandrum, decreed the suit.2. The appellant who was examined as Dw. 1 in the trial court was recalled and examined by the appellate court as a court witness and that evidence was also taken into consideration by the appellate Judge in decreeing the suit.3. The learned appellate Judge stated the reasons for recalling Dw. 1 as a court witness and examining him in the judgment under appeal thus:'On hearing the arguments in this appeal it struck me to be strange that a defendant who was admitted to h...
Sree Sai Baba Textiles Proprietor P. Anandan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker199
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant The fads relevant for the purpose of this appeal are mentioned below. Two hales of cotton piece-goods were consigned on 4-10-1951 by the appellant from the Railway Station. Cannanore, on the Southern Railway to Howrah on the Eastern Railway Since the consignee did not take delivery of the goods at Howrah, the consignot wrote Ext. A-9 dated 21-4-1952 to the Station authorities at Howrah for sending back the goods to him at Cannanore at his risk. The appellant was informed by Ext. A-12 dated 5-5-1952, that the goods were sold in auction by the Railway authorities on 13-3-1952 presumably under Section 55 of the Indian Railways Act. 1890 The suit was therefore filed by the appellant in compel the first respondent the Union of India to return the goods and if it is found that the goods were sold, for the recovery of the invoice value of the goods The two main contentions raised by the respondent are that the suit is not maintainable ...
Kunjamma Karthiani Amma Vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker276
Velu Pillai, J. 1. The appellant in A.S. 462 of 1960 is the second judgment-debtor and the revision petitioner in C.R.P. 645 of 1964 is the debtor-petitioner, in two separate proceedings under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, Act 31 of 1958, against their respective creditors, two banking companies, who are the respondents before us. The appeal and the Civil revision petition concern chiefly the application of Section 4(2) and (3) of the Act, to the debts due to the respondents. For the appellant and for the revision petitioner, it was contended, that the computation of these debts for payment under the Act must be in accordance with Section 4(2) and (3), read in the light of the definition of the term 'principal' in Section 2(h). For the respondents it was contended, that each of the debts being in excess of Rs. 1500 and having arisen out of a single transaction, is outside the purview of the Act, except to the extent indicated by the proviso to Section 2(c)(xi), under...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »