Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1967]64ITR223(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - These appeals raise a common question. The question relates to the extent of the property that attracts estate duty on the death of a sthanamdar.The contention of the department is that estate duty is payable on the entire property of the sthanam concerned. That contention has been accepted in the judgment under appeal in Writ Appeals Nos. 119, 174, 179 and 338 of 1965.The history and legal incidents of the sthanams have been the subject of a summary by the Supreme Court in Kochunni v. States of Madras and Kerala. That summary reads as follows :'The origin of the sthanam is lost in antiquity. It primarily means a dignity and denotes the status of the senior Raja in a Malabar Kovilgom or palace. It is surmised that sthanams were also created by the Rajas by giving certain properties to military chieftains and public officers and also by tarwads creating them and allocating certain properties for their maintenance. Most of the incidents of a sthanams are well settled. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker157; 1967CriLJ893
ORDER1. On 6-10-1964, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trichur made an ex parte order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting the two petitioners and 15 others, together referred to as the A Party, as also the public in general, from using a certain piece of land as a burial ground for the reason that such use was likely to lead to a clash between the members of the A Party on the one hand and certain others known as the B Party on the other and thereby create a disturbance of the public tranquillity. The order was to remain in force for two months. On 1-1-1065, the State Government, acting under Sub-section (6) of the section, extended the operation of the order until further orders--it had earlier, by ft notification dated 4-12-1964, extended it for a period of one month. On 14-10-1965, the petitioners made an application under Sub-section (4) of the section to the Additional District Magistrate, Trichur, to whom the Executive First Class Magistrate is subor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker12
Raghavan, J. 1. The second defendant, the son of defendants 1 and 3, who lost before both the lower courts, is the appellant and plaintiffs 1 to 6 the contesting respondents 1 to 6 The seventh respondent. the fifth defendant, is the mother of the other respondents and is the wife of deceased Krishnan, the father of respondents 1 to 6 The fourth defendant, who is not a party to the second appeal, was the brother of Krishnan The suit which has given rise to the second appeal, was for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of six shares out of seven of the suit properties leaving the seventh share, the share of the seventh respondent. The respondents are Ezhavas governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act of 1100: and the appellant represents the decree holder-purchaser of the suit properties in court auction. 2. The suit properties originally belonged to Krishnan, who executed the gift deed evidenced by Ex. P-1 in 1104 in favour of his wife, the seventh respondent, who had the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker28
ORDERKrishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. Defendant is the revision petitioner and the revision petition is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing the petition filed by the defendant to set aside the Commission report on the ground that the order issuing the Commission and the investigation by the Commissioner were without notice to him.2. The suit filed on 25-5-1962 is for mandatory injunction to fill up certain pits alleged to have been dug in the plaint property The plaintiff filed R.I.A 1090 of 1982 on 1-6-62 for the issue of a commission to prepare a plan of the property, to mark the pits in the property and to give an estimate of the expenses necessary to restore the property to its original condition The application was granted by the learned Munsif on 8-6-1982 without notice to the defendant. The Commissioner visited the property and conducted the investigation on 13-6-1962, also without notice to the defendant and filed his report in court.3. The contention raised by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker56
K. Sadasivan, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal. Accused 1 and 2 were tried under Sections 323 and 114 I. P. C., by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Moovattupuzha in S. T. 1026/65 for causing injuries to one Annakutty by pelting stones at her. The first accused is the son of the second accused. First accused was engaged at about 1 P. M. on 29-8-65 in grazing his oxen near P. W. 1's compound. The oxen destroyed the cultivation in her compound. She protested and asked him to take away the cattle from there He refused, whereupon she threw stones at the oxen to scare them away. One of the stones hit the bull.This provoked the first accused and he abused her in vulgar language and threw a stone at her. The stone struck her left leg. The second accused the father, ran up to the scene and instigated the first accused to commit further acts of violence. He even asked his son to do away with the girl. Thereupon the first accused again threw a stone which hit her right leg. P. W. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1967]37CompCas538(Ker); (1967)IILLJ107Ker
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The sanction sought in paragraph 4 of the report is accorded.2. The company that is being wound up is a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act. Its business of running water transport services was being continued by the liquidator under Section 457(1)(b) of that Act. The winding up order did not put an end to the company --- that is yet to be done by an order of dissolution - - and there can be no doubt that, the winding up order notwithstanding, the business is an establishment owned by a Government company and therefore an 'establishment in public sector' as defined by Section 2(16) of Central Act 21 of 1965 (the Act for short).It is not disputed that the bonus the liquidator proposes to pay to the employees of the establishment is in accord with what is payable under Section 10 of the Act; the contention is that the section itself does not apply by reason of Section 32(x) which says that nothing in the Act shall apply to employ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker223
ORDERT.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the first defendant arises out of proceedings under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. In execution at the decree of in O. S. 175 of the 1962 on the file of the Munsiffs Court Haripad, 95 cents of land belonging to the revision petitioner were sold in court auction on 10-2-1964 for Rs. 1747-53 P. The revision petitioner filed E. A. 164 of 1963 under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. for setting aside the court sale. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. The appeal against the order was also dismissed by, tine Additional District Judge of Mavelikara. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against these concurrent orders. 2. The properties belonging to the revision petitioner came up for sale on 9-12-1963 when he prayed for two months' time, by filing C. M. P. 5131 of 1963, waiving fresh proclamation. The court adjourned the sale to 10-2-1964 on condition that the first defendant should pay or deposit 1/4th of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker245
1. The petitioners in O. P. No. 3107 of 1964--the monthly rated workmen of Messrs Pierce Leslie end Company Limited Cochin, represented by Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, Cochin--are the appellants before us. The first respondent is the Labour Commissioner and Chief Conciliation Officer, Kerala State, Trivandrum, the second is the District Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer. Alwaye, the third is the Deputy Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer, Cochin, and the fourth is the General Manager of Pierce Leslie and Company Limited, Cochin.2. Certain demands--mostly identical in character were raised by the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, Cochin, as well as by the Mercantile Employees' Association, Calicut, in respect of the monthly rated workmen of the company. Both the associations are trade unions registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926.3. The demands of the Cochin Commercial Employees Association were made on the 28th March, 1964 The demands of the M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker17; (1968)IILLJ259Ker
Velu Pillai, J. 1. There can be no doubt, that if Ext. P-8, the amendment dated 5th June, 1964, of Rule 39 of the Madras Judicial Ministerial Service Rules of 1956 made with retrospective effect from the 1st October, 1903, by the Governor in the exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution is valid, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the legality of the appointment of the second respondent as the Sheristadar of the District Palghat. Two contentions were advanced against its validity, first, that conditions of service by their very nature cannot be altered retrospectively to the detriment of Government servants and second, that the said power of the Governor does not extend to making rules with retrospective effect.2. The first contention was dismissed at unsustainable by P. B. Mukharji. J. in Anil Nath De v Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, AIR 1968 Cal. 407 at p. 410 in the following words:--'A part of the obligations of a Government serva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1967)ILLJ789Ker
1. The petitioners in Original Petition No. 3107 of 1964-the monthly-rated workmen of Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., Cochin, represented by the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, Cochin-are the appellants before as. Respondent 1 is the Labour Commissioner and Chief Conciliation Officer, Kerala State, Trivandrum; respondent 2 is the District Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer, Alwaye ; respondent 3 is the Deputy Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer, Cochin; and respondent 4 is the general manager of Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., Cochin.2. Certain demands, mostly identical in character, were raised by the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, Cochin, as well as by the Mercantile Employees' Association, Calicut, in respect of the monthly-rated workmen of the company. Both the associations are trade unions registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926,3. The demands of the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association were made on 28 March 1964. The demands of the Mercantile Em...
Tag this Judgment!