Kerala Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. P. P. Hassan KoyA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR791(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year concerned is 1961-62; and the question referred is :'Whether the income arising from the properties transferred to the wakf by the assessee is liable to be included in the income of the assessee under section 16(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The assessee executed the deed of wakf on 5th November, 1960. The deed is reproduced as appendix 'A' to the statement of the case.In Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak v. Basamaya Dhur Chowdhri, the Judicial Committee held that when the gifts to charity were substantial, and not illusory, then alone a wakf will be valid, and that where a wakf was founded for the aggrandizement of a family, or where the gifts to charity were illusory or merely nominal, the wakf will be void. The decision created a storm in this country, o...
T.J. Poonen Vs. Rathi Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker1
Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this civil revision petition on behalf of the petitioner Mr. M T. Paikada learned counsel challenges the order of the learned District Judge of Trivandrum, dated 15th January 1966 overruling the objections raised by the petitioner to entertain O.P. No. 1 (Indian Divorce Act) of 1965, filed by the respondent herein before that Court. 2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent took place on 2-4-1964 The respondent filed the Original Petition in question before the District Court, Trivandrum, under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Central Act 4 of 1869), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, for a declaration that the marriage that took place between her and the revision petitioner on 2-4-1984 is null and void. It is not necessary for us at this stage, to refer to the various averments made in the Original Petition or in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, regarding the grounds, on the basis of which the Ori...
Dr. Kasi Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker316; 1966CriLJ1445
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an application made by the accused in Sessions Case 10 of 1966 challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum disallowing his prayer that the investigating officer who is a witness in the case, be not allowed to remain in Court when the other witnesses in the case arc being examined. It is represented by the learned State Prosecutor that the examination of eye witnesses arc now over and this petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the witnesses have all been examined, but as the question involved is important he invites a decision at least for future guidance. 2. The question that arises for decision is whether the Court has got power to order unexamined witnesses out of Court until their examination is taken up. It is true that neither the Evidence Act nor the Code of Criminal Procedure contain any specific provision for ordering witnesses out of Court although it...
Gangadharan Vaidyan (V.) (Proprietor, Swatantra Pharmacy) Vs. Regional ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ216Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner is an ayurvedic physician and the proprietor of the Swatantra Pharmacy, Chalakudi. He seeks to quash the coverage notice, Ex. P. 1, dated 9 December 1964, and the letters, Ex. P. 3, dated 18 January 1965, and Ex. P. 5, dated 20 February 1965, Issued by the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum, and further seek to restrain the respondent from enforcing the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme against the petitioner.2. Section 1(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, applies the Act to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified In Such. I and in which twenty or more persons are employed. Section 2A of the Act which was inserted by the amending Act 46 of 1960 with effect from 31 December 1960 reads as follows:2A. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or I...
Sebastian Vs. Rubber Board and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas117(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 518(1)(b) of the Companies Act brought by the liquidator in a members voluntary winding-up. What it seeks is a stay of the proceedings taken by the 1st respondent Rubber Board (the contesting respondent and hereinafter referred to as merely the respondent) under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the realisation of Rs. 6,57,367.60 due from the company by way of cess levied under Section 12 of the Rubber Act.2. The facts set out in paragraphs 6 to 11 of the affidavit filed in support of this application are not controverted ; nor is it the case of the respondent that the declaration of solvency made by the directors of the company (a copy of which has been marked as exhibit P-1) is in any respect false. That being so, I think I ought to grant the stay if I have the power to do so. For, from the circumstances disclosed I am satisfied that, if the respondent is to bring the properties of the company to sale at t...
Chandravathi Amma and ors. Vs. Cheripuram Payapattillath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker318
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Respondents 5, 7, 10 and 16 to 19 in an execution petition are the appellants and the decree-holder the respondent. The decree sought to be executed was passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kasaragod against three defendants, the second defendant being the karanavan of their tarwad. After the decree the tarwad was partitioned; and the 22 respondents in the execution petition were all the members of the entire tarwad. At the time of the partition, all the major members of the tarwad executed an unregistered agreement, Ex. B-3, wherein all the binding debts were included with directions as to who should discharge which of them. The decree sought to be recovered in this proceeding was also included in Ext. B-3; and it was directed to be repaid by the lavazhi of the appellants. The respondent obtained the decree transferred from the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod to the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate at Hosdrug. There was another execution petition pending ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam Vs. Devadasan and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR569(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - Acting under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question to this court :'Whether the assessee did constitute an association of persons carrying on business for gain ?'This reference was originally numbered as I.T.R. No. 32 of 1963. But, when the case came up for hearing, this court found that the power of attorney executed by the heirs of Cherutty was necessary for deciding the question referred to us and accordingly called for a fuller statement of the case under sub-section (4) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by order dated 12th August, 1964. We have now before us the additional statement as well as the copy of the power of attorney. And, as a result of the discussion at the Bar, it is now clarified that the only income with which we are concerned in this reference is the income derived by the felling of trees from a forest area that had been taken on a 'verump...
V. K. Kurien and K. P. George Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR675(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 question referred reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm should have been granted registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'Section 26A consists of two sub-sections. Sub-section (1) provides :'Application may be made to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of any firm, constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual share of the partners, for registration for the purpose of this Act and of any other enactment for the time being in force relating to income-tax or super-tax.'and sub-section (2) :'The application shall be made by such person or persons, and at such times and shall contain such particulars and shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be dealt with by t...
Kuruvila Markose Vs. Varkey Varkey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker315
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The defendant in a suit on a promissory note is the appellant. His contention before the lower Courts was that the promissory note was not genuine; but the lower Courts have not accepted this. On the evidence on record and by comparing the signatures and handwriting with the admitted signatures and handwriting of the appellant, the lower Courts have held that the promissory note was genuine. The admitted handwriting and signatures are available in Exts. D-1 and D-2; and it is not very easy to say that they are exactly similar to the handwriting and signature in the suit promissory note. Still, being a second appellate Court, I agree with the lower Courts. Mr. P. K. Krishnankutty Menon, on behalf of the appellant, then pleads that the appellant might be Riven an opportunity to produce expert evidence on the question. It does not appear that the appellant made any such prayer before the lower Courts. The suit was filed in 1954; and it may not be proper to accede to th...
T.K. Menon and Co. (by Partner P.R. Menon) Vs. District Labour Officer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ608Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Petitioners are chartered accountants. Their work consists of auditing limited companies and representing clients before the taxing authorities, and according to their estimate their work as auditors of the companies is just about ten per centum of the total volume of work handled by them. According to the petitioners, apart from their special or popular intellectual and educational equipment, they have no other capital investment. Petitioners have ' articled clerks ' who are persons undergoing training for being enrolled as chartered accountants. Their job is to audit the accounts of the clients at the instruction of the petitioners and under their personal supervision. In addition to the 'articled clerks,' petitioners employ some subordinate staff known as personal clerks. According to the petitioners their work is rather mechanical in character.2. Some of these clerks put forward certain claims relating to their salary and allowances. Although some Increments were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »