Kerala Court June 1965 Judgments
Essa Ismail and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker165
1. These writ appeals are directed against the dismissal of 0. P, Nos. 2378 and 2379 of 1963 Writ Appeal No. 57 is from the decision in O. P. No. 2379 of 1963 and Writ Appeal No. 60 is from the decision in O. P. No 2378 of 1963. The common judgment for both the petitions reads as follows:In view of the decision reported in 1963 Ker LJ 1193: (AIR 1064 Ker 141) I dismiss the above petitions.'2. The sole question for determination is whether the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution which provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Thuttampara Planting Co. v. Tahsildar, Chittur, 1963 Ker LJ 1193: (AIR 1964 Ker 141) is to the effect that the statute does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Every difference in treatment is not an act of discrimination. It is not the lack of uniformity but the absence of an intelligible differ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Unni Nayar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker99
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The first petitioner is the Receiver appointed by the Sub Court. Ottappalam, in O.S. No. 65 of 1956 on the Ale of that Court, in respect of the sthanam properties of the Mannarghat Moopil Nayar. Subsequent to the filing of the O. P. there was a change in the personnel of the Receiver, and the present Receiver by C. M. P. No. 5086 of 1964, has petitioned this Court to be impleaded as supplemental second petitioner in the O. P. The aid C. M. P. has to be allowed and I do so.2. By this O. P. the Receiver abovenamed seeks to quash the notices evidenced by Exts. D and E by which the Estate Duly payable in respect of the estate of late. Sri. Mannarghat T. Moopil Nayar was determined (provisionally) at Rs. 37,1913.71 under Section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, XXX. IV of 1953. There is a further prayer for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent. His Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, from taking any action or initialing any proceedings to enforce the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Bhaskara Menon Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker201
1. This petition challenges the validity of Rule 251 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961. Counsel for the petitionerwhile making his submissions; however, confined the attack to a portion of the rule. That portion reads as follows : ' In relation to the number of persons that may be carried in a public service vehicle and the faros chargeable for carrying them in the vehicle (c) a student of any recognised educational institution travelling in stage carriages for the purpose of attending class shall be reckoned as one-half; Provided that such students shall be entitled to the concession only for travels to and fro for attending classes and only if they show an identify card issued by the head of the institution in the following form (form omitted) Provided further Dial Die concession shall be given in the form of monthly season tickets at hall' the daily fares. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule recognised educational institution includes (1) Industrial training centr...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore Vs. Pandavalappil Ka ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker70; 1966CriLJ416
Anna Chandy, J.1. This appeal is by the Food Inspector of the Cannanore Municipality against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge in a case in which the District Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 16(1)(a) and 16(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 16th September 1964 acquitted the accused for the failure on the part of the Food Inspector to comply with the requirements of Section 10(7) of the Act. The complainant took the matter in appeal to the High Court. The appeal was allowed, holding that non-compliance with Section 10(7), even if it exists, is only an irregularity and it was open to the Court to consider whether the evidence of P. W. 1 could safely he accepted. The case was therefore remanded for fresh disposal to the Sessions Court. Then the appellant raised two fresh grounds of attack against the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai and anr. Vs. Lekshmi Amma Gourikutty ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker18
Gopalan Nambivar, J.1. This second appeal has been placed before a Full Bench as it was felt that it raised a question of far reaching importance, and involved a consideration of the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Kesavan Nair Gopalan Nair v. Lekshmi Amma Karthiyani Amma, 1955 Ker LT 157.2. One Puthupurackal tarwad was a maru-makkathayam larwad governed by the Travancore Nair Act II of 1100. In the year 1097 M.E. the tarwad executed a hypothecation deed in respect of the plaint item and 17 other items of properties to one Govinda Pillai. In 1104, a partition was effected in the tarwad which is evidenced by Ex. A, by which the plaint property was allotted to the sub tarwad of the 8th defendant in the suit, ouf of which the above second appeal arises (O. S. No. 716 of 1954, First Additional Munsiff Court. Neyyat-tinkara), Plaintiffs and defendants 9 to 12 in the said suit are the children of 8th defen-dent and constitute the said su...
Tag this Judgment!The Income-tax Officer, Alleppey Vs. M.C. Ponnoose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker5; [1967]64ITR117(Ker)
1. Writ Appeal No. 139 is from the decision in O. P. No. 317 of 1963 and Writ Appeal No. 140 is from the decision in O. P No. 712 of 1963. The Income-tax Officer, Alleppey, the third respondent in both the original petitions, is the appellant before us.2. The Income-tax Act, 1961, came into force on 1-4-1962 Section 2(44) of that Act defined the expression 'Tax Recovery Officer' as follows:'Tax Recovery Officer' means- (i) A Collector; (ii) an additional Collector or any other officer authorised to exercise the powers of a Collector under any law relating to land revenue for the time being in force in a State; or (iii) any gazetted officer of the Central or a State Government who may he authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer'. 3. Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1963, substituted a new definition for the definition extracted above and directed that the new definition 'shall be and shall be deemed alw...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sukumaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ403Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal on behalf of defendant 1, State, the learned Government Pleader attacks the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Trivandrum, accepting the claim of the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 115 of 1956.2. The plaintiff was, at the material time, working as a constable in the Wireless and Telegraphic section of the Armed Reserve of the Travancore-Cochin Police Force at Oolampara in Trivandrum. There is no controversy that the plaintiff was appointed to the post by the Inspector-General of Police on 3 January 1951. It is seen that according to the authorities concerned the plaintiff was suspected to be involved in carrying en certain subversive activities in conjunction with certain other members of the police force and that resulted in disciplinary action being initiated as against the plaintiff.3. So far as the records go, it is seen that a communication, Ex. P. 2, was sent by the District Superintendent of Police of the Armed Reserv...
Tag this Judgment!iravinallur alias Orupulasseri Manakkal Parameswaran Namboodiripad's s ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker19
1. Section 12 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 as amended by MadrasActs XXXIII of 1951, VII of 1954 and XXII of 1956 provides for the reduction of the rent payable by an intermediary to his landlord where, by the operation of Madras Act XXXIII of 1951 or Madras Act VII of 1954 there has been a reduction of the rent payable to the intermediary by his tenant. In this case, however, the reduction of the rent payable to the intermediary 1st defendant by his tenant, the 2nd defendant, was not by the operation of Madras Act XXXIII of 1951 or of Madras Act VII of 1954 which alone are referred to in Section 32 but by the operation of Madras Act XXII of 1956 which is not referred to in the Section -- in fact the fair rent as first fixed under the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act as amended by Acts XXXIII of 1951 and VII of 1954 was the same as the contract rent, so that there was no reduction by the operation of those Acts; it was only by an amendment ordered under Section 7(2) of Act XXII...
Tag this Judgment!Nangu Amma Devaki Amma and ors. Vs. Appi Parameswaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker41
Raman Nayar, J.1. Section 4 of the Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100 provides that a marriage may be dissolved by (among other ways) 'mutual consent evidenced by a registered instrument'. This does not mean that mutual consent by itself can effect a dissolution, the registered instrument being only the prescribed mode of proof. The word 'evidenced' is not used in the section in the sense of serving as evidence in a court of law but as meaning, made evident or manifest. Both the mutual consent and a registered instrument evidencing, in other words, manifesting this mutual consent must be there before there can be a dissolution. Both are conditions precedent and it follows that the dissolution is effected only when the registered instrument has come into being. (In this connection see Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 483 of 1091 dated 16-10-1916, 1917 Trav LJ 242 where it was observed, with great respect rightly, that the mutual consent of the parties is by itself not sufficient to put an end to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Krishna Iyer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR59(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 assessment year concerned is 1954-55.During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1954-55, the assessee received from the P. S. N. Motors (Private) Ltd. Rs. 36,000 by way of salary, Rs. 7,161 by way of commission and Rs. 79 by way of sitting fees. The first question referred - on the motion of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala - relates to these receipts and is worded as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from salary, commission and sitting fees obtained by Sri. P. N. Krishna Iyer from Messrs. P. S. N. Motors (Private) Ltd., Trichur, represented his individual income and not the income of the Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta ?'The P. S. N. Motors (Private) Ltd. was incorporated on July 3, 1952 There were only two s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »