Kerala Court January 1966 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.
Annamma Kunjacko Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR85(Ker)
MADHAVAN NAIR J. - Motion for a writ of habeas corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India.Assessment of income-tax has been made on the petitioners husband - hereinafter called the assessee - for the years 1121, 1122, 1123 and 1124 M. E. under the Travancore Income-tax Act, XXIII of 1121, and for the subsequent years 1950-51 onwards, under the Indian income-tax Act (XI of 1922). For recovery of taxes thus assessed under the Travancore Act and the Indian act, the assessee has been arrested on December 17, 1965, and detained in the civil prison, Central Jail, Trivandrum, under section 222 read with ruled 73 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act (XLIII of 1961). Shri Suryanarayana Iyer, appearing for the petitioner, asserts that the process of arrest and detention is not available for taxes assessed under the Travancore Act and that therefore the detention is illegal, and prays for a writ of habeas corpus to set the assessee at liberty.That the assessee is a defaulter is not in ...
Srikandath Govinda Menon Vs. Union of India (Uoi), New Delhi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker216
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to me under Section 23 of the Travan-core-Cochin High Court Act, 1125, as the learned Judges. Velu Pillai and Mathew, JJ., who originally heard the petition differed in their conclusions as to the jurisdiction of the Union of India to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on some of the charges. 2. A few fads may now be stated - The petitioner, Shri S. Govinda Menon, is a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was the First Member of the Board of Re-venue. Kerala State and was also holding the post of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. On the basis of certain petitions containing allegations of misconduct against the petitioner in the discharge of his duties as Commissioner, the Kerala Government, after conducting certain preliminary inquiries, started disciplinary proceedings against him, keeping him under suspension under R. 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rul...
Madhavan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker258; 1966CriLJ1267
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The appellant Madhavan was convicted of the murder of his wife Madhavi under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life. In the nature of the contention of the appellant it is not necessary to state the prosecution case in detail. There was no eyewitness to the occurrence which took place on 18-1-1965. The learned Sessions Judge accepted in main the statement given by the appellant under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The only point raised by the appellant's advocate before us was that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the I. P. C. The facts relevant for the purpose of considering the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 are stated below. There was a celebration on 18-1-1965 in the Anthiringa temple near the house of the appellant. He was a member of the committee in charge of the celebrations. At about 4 p.m. on 18-1-1965 he went to the temple with the c...
Narayana Pillai Gopala Pillai and anr. Vs. Krishna Pillai Chellappan P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker317
1. This appeal was taken by the two plaintiff's in the suit, plaintiff's 1 and 2. The second plaintiff, the second appellant, the mother of the first appellant, died after this second appeal was filed. It is said that the first plaintiff is entitled to continue the appeal and we have assumed that the first plaintiff is entitled to do so without deciding the question. 2. The suit was for paddy and money alleged to be due from the defendants in accordance with the provisions of a will executed by the deceased husband of the second plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The second defendant, one of the legal representatives of one of the legatees under the will who was obliged to pay the paddy and money claimed in the plaint preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. Defendants 1 and 3 to 8, the other legal representatives of the legatee were not parties to that appeal. However the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed in its entirely. In this second appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›