Kerala Court July 1966 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Cherian Secariah and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker106; 1967CriLJ634
P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of the District Magistrate. Kottayam acquitting the respondents (accused) who were tried and convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, Kottayam for an offence under Section 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act (shortly stated the Act) On 8-8-65. P W 1, a head constable attached to the Kottayam East Police Station found the respondents and two others engaged in a play called 'Pareelu', a game of chance in the compound of one Kalavil Gopalan Asari. The first respondent Scaria was arrested on the spot, but the others made good their escape. A sum of Rs 1.33 and the playing cards MO 2 series were recovered from the scene under a mahazar Ext. P-2. P. W 3 another police constable who was present with P. W 1 and P. W. 2 another independent witness have given evidence corroborating the evidence of P W 1 that they were engaged in gambling. 2. It cannot he disputed that the respondents were seen playing cards for money and from the eviden...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Muhammed Vs. the Collector of Palghat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker254; [1967]19STC475(Ker)
Krishnamoohthy Iyer, J. 1. The two second appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, Palghat, holding that the E.Ps 762 of 1959 and 761 of 1959 are not barred by limitation The appellant who is the same in both the appeals was an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939). In default to pay the amounts specified in Section 8-B Sub-section (2) of the Act within the prescribed time he was prosecuted under Section 15 thereof in C. C. 146 of 1951 and C. C 145 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Palghat, and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in each case. As enjoined by Section 15(h) of the Act the amount due from the appellant by way of arrears of sales-tax were specified in the orders passed by the Magistrate and the amounts specified were Rs. 1,334-12-0 in C. C. 146 of 1951 and Rs. 1,766-2-6 in C. C. 145 of 1951. Warrants were issued by the Magistrate under Section 386(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Pothen Vs. Hindustan Trading Corporation Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas266(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This is a contributory's winding up petition brought under the just and equitable clause on the ground that the substratum of the company is gone.2. The petition is opposed by the company, a private limited company, which had only six members at the time of the presentation of the petition. All of them are before court. Two, including the petitioner, holding 1996 out of a total of 4,000 shares, are in favour of the winding up while the remaining four, holding 2004 shares, are opposed to it. A contributory coming under the just and equitable clause has generally an uphill task, for, the statute establishes a domestic tribunal as between the members and the company and thus enables the members themselves by passing the requisite resolutions to determine whether there shall be a voluntary liquidation or whether the court shall be asked to make a compulsory order. The petitioner's course is not made any the less steep by the circumstances that the majority of the mem...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Sethurama Menon Vs. Thaiparambath Kunhukutty Amma's daughter, Mee ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker88
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The appellant, an advocate practising at Calicut, challenges the correctness of the dismissal of his petition, O. P. No. 1472 of 1965. By that petition he challenged, without success, the correctness of an order of eviction from a house of the first respondent of which he was the tenant.2. The eviction directed by the District Judge, the Revisional Authority, was under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The appellant's contention which has been negatived in the judgment under appeal was that he came within the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of that section.3. Sub-section (3) says that a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. There are four provisos to the sub-section. We are concerned only with the second of those fo...
Tag this Judgment!Haji M. Kadar Mohammed Rowther and Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC17(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The question raised in this Tax Revision Case is whether a certain part of the turnover of the petitioner, Rs. 97,052.43 is liable to be assessed at the hands of the petitioner and if it is so liable to be assessed he- should get exemption for the payment of tax to the extent to which tax has been paid on the same turnover by those who are said to be commission agents, effecting the sales on commission basis.2. The facts are these: The petitioner claimed that he had been effecting sales through commission agents. A number of affidavits from such alleged commission agents were produced before the taxing authorities. To take one of these affidavits as an example, it is stated therein that:I have included in the turnover submitted by me for sales tax for the year 1961-1962 the sum of Rs. 6,105.66 (Rupees six thousand and one hundred and five np. sixty-six only) being the sales effected by me as commission agent of M/s. Hajee M. Kader Mohammed Rowther & Co.3. It is s...
Tag this Judgment!Nalakath Pareekutty Haji Vs. Cheracham Veettil Putham Purayil, Mariyak ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker236
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The plaintiff who was directed to pay the costs of the legal representatives of the first defendant in the appeal and the second appeal which arose out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage is the appellant. One Moldunni Hall had executed a usufructuary mortgage in respect of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The properties were taken back on lease by the mortgagor. The plaint A schedule properly comprised in the mortgage deed was assigned to the plaintiff and the plaint B schedule property comprised therein was assigned to the 6th defendant The plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage impleading the first defendant and the 5th defendant. The trial Court passed a joint decree for redemption in favour of the plaintiff and the 5th defendant and directed the parties to the action to hear their costs. Against the decree the plaintiff filed A S 280 of 1948 During the pendency of the appeal the f...
Tag this Judgment!Pothen Joseph and Sons Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC123(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The question that arises for determination is whether in fixing the turnover of the petitioner for imposing tax on him under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) the turnover represented by the excise duty paid by the assessee should be deducted or not.2. Shortly stated, the contention of the assessee is that by virtue of Section 9(3) of the Act, the tax payable by him will have to be assessed 'in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is assessed, paid and collected.Section 9(3) reads thus : -The authorities for the time being empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India and subject to any rules made under this Act, assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax, including any penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act in the same manner as the t...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Ayyappan Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC474(Ker)
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. These two petitions are by a trader assessed under the General Sales Tax Act for the two years 1960-61 and 1961-62 against his con victions for non-payment of taxes for those years. The questions raised are the same in both.2. On 29th October, 1963, the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Intelligence Officer, Palghat, when 'a second series' of account books were seized. On the basis of transactions disclosed by them he was assessed on escaped turnovers in the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 by orders dated March 5 and 4, 1964, to pay Rs. 460.26 and Rs. 1,650.41 respectively. Though demand notices were served on the assessee on 9th May, 1964, he did not pay the taxes. It was also found that on 22nd November, 1963, he had executed a sale of his pro perties to his son, waiving price on account of affection. The revenue launched two prosecutions against him-one for each year of assess ment- under Sections 46(1)(f) and 46(2)(c) of the Kerala General Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Nechupadam Construction Engineering Contractors Vs. the Executive Engi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC82(Ker)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner are a firm. They had undertaken a contract work with Government for forming embankment for the dam from L. S. O. to 2000 in the Pothundi Project. Their case is : Government, the second respondent, had undertaken to supply petrol and high speed diesel oil at Re. 0.71 per litre for petrol and Re. 0.63 per litre for diesel oil; the value of the petrol and diesel oil was agreed to be deducted from out of the part-bills paid by the first respondent; along with the amount so deducted as value of the diesel oil and petrol, the first respondent deducted various amounts -totalling Rs. 19,502.53 as sales tax on the diesel oil and petrol purchased by the petitioner ; the petrol and diesel oil are liable to tax only at the point of first sale in the State. The contention of the petitioner is that they are not the first purchasers in the State of the petrol and diesel oil, and that the recovery of sales tax from them was illegal. The petitioner made a demand to refu...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Educational Officer Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1966
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ321Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The appellant before us was served with a chargesheet and punished for the misconduct alleged by order Ex. P. 14 which has been produced along with the writ application which gave rise to the order under appeal. Another order Ex. P. 16 was passed afterwards, as we understand it, under Rule 56 of the Kerala Service Rules. These two orders were challenged in the writ application. This Court declined to go into the question of the validity or otherwise of the order Ex. P. 14 because an appeal from that order was pending but quashed the demand contained in Ex. P. 16.2. The question that arises for determination depends on the interpretation of Rule 56 of the Kerala Service Rules which reads as follows:56. (1) When an officer who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired, or suspended is reinstated, or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »