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.
K. Kungu Govindan and ors. Vs. Parakkat Kunhilekshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker244
Vaidialingam, J.1. The point referred by the learned Chief Justice and Madhavan Nair, J., for adjudication by this Full Bench, in substance is one relating to the question as to whether the letting of the two picture houses in these cases, to which we will refer later, and evidenced by the lease deed Ex. A-1 in respect of one theatre, and by a compromise decree, in respect of the other theatre, come within the ambit of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, Act XVI of 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act),2. It is necessary to set out in brief, the circumstances which led to this reference being made to the Full Bench. It will be seen that the subject-matter of the leases are two cinema houses, situated in Kozhikode one the Coronation Threatre, and the other the Radha Picture Palace. Both these picture houses belong to the Pootheri family. It is also seen that the Coronation Theatre was leased out on 28-8-1956, by the owner of the premises, one Krishna Menon...
Achutha Pai Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1965
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas598(Ker); 1966CriLJ478
P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. These two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the point involved is the same. The Registrar of Companies had filed two complaints. The first accused in each of these cases being the company --The Hindustan Corporation (P.) Ltd.--second accused the petitioner here, the governing director of the company and accused Nos. 3 and 4 being ordinary directors. The subject-matter of the charge in the case in Criminal Revision Petition No. 286 of 1964 was for failure to submit returns as required by Sections 159 and 161 of the Indian Companies Act (shortly stated the Act), offence punishable under Section 162 of the Act. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 287 of 1964, it was for failure to file the balance-sheet and profit and loss account as required by Section 220 of the Act, offence punishable under Section 220(3) of the Act. Learned District Magistrate on the evidence found all the accused guilty as charged. The company and the petitioner were ...
The Bank of Commerce Ltd. Vs. Joseph Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker147
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I am inclined to the view that an application under Section 15 of the Act 31 of 1956 is not a proceeding against the creditors of the applicant debtor so as to bring Section 446 of the Companies Act into play when one of the creditors happens to be a company in respect of which a winding up order has been made--see the observations in Jaini Ali v. Narayana Pillai 1961 Ker LT 174 and in Thomas John v. Palai Central Bank Ltd. 1961 Ker LT 648 which though rendered with reference only to Section 45B of the Banking Companies Act and not with reference to Section 446 of the Companies Act proceed on the basis that such proceedings are not proceedings against the creditors. But there can be little doubt that an application to restrain a creditor from executing a decree obtained by him is a proceeding against him and when the creditor is, in this case, a banking company that has been ordered in be wound up, both Section 446 of the Companies Act and Section 45B of the...
Cheeru Elayachi Vs. Seemon Chacko and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker139
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The facts necessary to understand the only question raised in the ease may be stated. The first defendant was the owner of four items of properties: and he created a hypothecation over all of them, Defendants 11, 12 and 13 purchased item 2, the 20th defendant item 1 and some other defendants item 3, thus leaving item 4 alone in the possession of the first defendant. He, thereafter, created another possessory mortgage on item 4 in favour of the plainliff-appellant; and the latter is now in possession of item 4 A suit was brought on the original mortgage on all the four items; and the appellant paid off the entire debt to save his subsequent mortgage on item 4 Then he filed the suit giving rise to the second appeal for contribution from the other three items; and the trial court granted a decree in his favour directing the three items to pay proportionately. Defendants 11, 12 and 13, the-owners of item 2, filed an appeal before the lower appellate court; and the 20th...
The Additional Expenditure Tax Officer, Palghat Vs. V. Venugopala Ravi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker235
Velu Pillai, J. 1. These appeals by the Additional Expenditure Tax Officer, Palghat, are directed against the orders of a learned Judge of this Court, allowing two writ petitions, O. P. 820 of 1962 for quashing the assessment for the assessment year 1958-69, and O. P. 1762 of 1962 for quashing the preliminary notices for assessment for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1961-62, under the Expenditure Tax Act, or shortly the Act, of the respondent, who as the Valia Raja of Kollengode represents the assessee, a Hindu undivided family following the Marumakkathayam law. The respondent's predecessor, the then Valia Raja, filed a return of expenses incurred by him during the account year ended the 31st March, 1958, for the assessment year 1958-59, according to which, there was no taxable expenditure, the total expenditure not having exceeded the prescribed limit of exemption. But the appellant, by Ext. P-1 dated the 21st March, 1962 included the aggregate of the expenditure incurred ...
Karunakaran (K. K.) Vs. Director, Bureau of Economics and Statistics a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ221Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner, who was a statistical inspector, was promoted as a Research Officer in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics and was posted as economic investigator in the Rural Industrial Project, Kozhikode, as per the order, dated 18 February 1963, passed by respondent 1 (see Ex. P. 1). Two other persons, namely, V. K. Paran Unni and Bhaskara Menon, were also promoted as Research Officers under that order. The petitioner states in his affidavit:In the selection list of the Public Service Commission, there were nine persons junior to the petitioner and they were also appointed as statistical inspectors. Since 18 February 1963 these juniors as well as nine others were promoted as Research Officers. Except the said Paran Unni and the petitioner, all the other incumbents are now functioning as Research Officers.2. The petitioner and Paran Unni were reverted as research assistants by an order passed on 23 June 1964 by respondent 1 (Ex. P. 2). The reason why that order w...
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Vs. Ramankutty Panachical Narayanan and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ479
Anna Chandy, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The respondent accused was convicted by the First Class Magistrate Cranganoxe under Section 379, I. P.C. read with Section 39 as also under Section 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. He was sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment under the first count and for the second to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment of which he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal the Sessions Judge, Trichur acquitted him of all charges.2. The case against him was that he the owner of a coir factory where electricity was used in the process of manufacturing coir products committed theft of electric energy by tampering with the electric meter installed in his factory. The modus operandi is ingenious. A tiny hole was drilled on the underside of the meter so that a thin sliver of wood could be pushed in, which stops the movement of the rotating decontrolling the recording of consumption of energy. On 4-3-1964 two of the ...
Additional Expenditure Tax Officer, Palghat Vs. Venugopala Ravi Varma ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR188(Ker)
VELU PILLAI J. - These appeals by the Additional Expenditure-tax Officer, Palghat, are directed against the orders of a learned judge of this court, allowing two writ petitions, O. P. No. 820 of 1962, for quashing the assessment for the assessment year 1958-59, and O. P. No. 1752 of 1962, for quashing the preliminary notices or assessment for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, under the Expenditure-tax Act (or shortly the Act) of the respondent, who was the Valia Raja of Kollengode, represents the assessee, a Hindu undivided family following the Marumakkathayam law. The respondents predecessor, the Valia Raja, field a return of expenses incurred by him during account year ended the 31st March, 1958, for the assessment year 1958-59, according to which there was no taxable expenditure, the total expenditure not having exceeded the prescribed limit of exemption. But the appellant, by exhibit P-1 dated 21st March, 1962, included the aggregate of the expenditure incurred by ...
Neelacanta Iyer Subramania Iyer Vs. Thommel George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker170
1. This is an appeal from the decision in A. D. R. A. No. 27 of 1959 of the Principal Sub Court of Alleppcy. The appellant was the first counter-petitioner in that application. 2. The application which has been allotted was for relief under Section 11 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1968. That section embodies the special provision in respect of usufructuary mortgages executed by agriculturists. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the section subject to the pro-visions of Section 25 with which it is agreed we arc not concerned --- applies to all subsisting mortgages executed by an agriculturist at any time before the commencement of the Act and by virtue of which the mortgagee is in possession of the properly mortgaged to him or any portion thereof. 3. There is an explanation to Sub-section (1). It is agreed that the explanation is of no consequence to this case. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides: 'Notwithstanding that the period of the mortgage has not ...
idicheria Sosa, Pulippara Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker278
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these appeals, on behalf of the claimant appellant, Mr. Thomas V. Jacob, learned counsel challenges the award of the learned District Judge of Quilon declining to consider the claim for enhanced compensation, on the ground that the applications filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, seeking a reference to the civil court, are barred by limitation.2. The subject-matter of the two appeals relates to the acquisition of certain lands belonging to the appellant, who is the same in both the appeals, for the purpose of constructing the Omalloor Upper Primary School. Inasmuch as the two acquisitions were made for the same purpose, they were the subject of two references to the civil court, namely L.A.R. Nos. 31 and 82 of 1960. The award itself was on 28-3-1960, and the applications filed by the appellant seeking a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, are Exts. D-5 and D-9.3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »