Kerala Court July 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.
Appakannu Muhammed Haneefa and anr. Vs. Narayani Pilla Thankamma Pilla ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker190
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. These second appeals arise out of two suits disposed of together by both the lower courts. The appellants are the defendants in one of them, which was for declaration of title and partition. The contesting respondent, Thankamma Pillai, was the plaintiff in the other, which was for redemption. Both the lower courts dismissed the suit of the appellants and decreed the suit of the contesting respondent.2. Two sisters belonging to the Thala Nair community, Mamaperurnal and Mamalakshmi, had properties; and Thankamma Pillai, the lineal descendant in the female line of Mamaperumal, and two others, who were themselves lineal descendants in the female line of Mamalakshmi partitioned the properties under Ex. D-l in 1115 (February 1940). Thanakamma Pillai had two twin brothers, Padmanabhan Nair and Velyudhan Nair, who were also parties to one of these suits. It was believed at the time of the partition that properties belonging to women among Thala Nairs were inherited only by...
P.P. Looke Vs. N.J. Mathew and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas790(Ker)
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The complainant in C. C. No. 27 of 1965 on the file of the District Magistrate (Judicial), Alleppey, appeals against the acquittal of the accused who were hauled up before the court for offences under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and Section 628 of the Indian Companies Act (1 of 1956). Accused No. 1 is the managing director and accused Nos. 2 and 3 the directors of the Cochin Chemicals and Refineries Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the company), a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (7 of 1913) and the Indian Companies Amendment Act (21 of 1936). The case of the complainant is that in the directors' report and balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company for the year 1962, published by the accused on 7th March, 1963, false particulars were made knowing them to be false or omitted to state material facts knowing them to be material. The specific instance pointed out was that in the balance-sheetthe value of plant and machinery ...
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Mammu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC45(Ker)
1. These tax revision cases taken by the department pertain to sales tax assessments for the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively. They raise a common question and are dealt with by a common judgment. The question is whether a person selling trees growing spontaneously in his land can be said to be a 'dealer' within the meaning of that term in the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. For this purpose, it is essential that the assessee should carry on the business of buying or selling goods. When a person sells the produce from his land whether produced therein by agricultural operations or what grows there spontaneously, there is no element of any business involved. We dismiss these tax revision cases ; but make no order as to costs....
M.P. Alexander and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1966
Reported in: [1973]92ITR92(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, MadrasBench, acting under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has referred the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theinclusion of any sum as profits on materials supplied by the Governmentunder its agreement with the assessee is right in law? '2. The assessee entered into two contracts for the execution of certainworks for the State Government. The total amount of the first of thesecontracts is Rs. 5,52,191 and the second Rs. 2,24,109. These figures aremade up of the cost of materials, Rs. 2,56,639 and Rs. 87,482, respectively,for the two contracts, supplied by the Government to the contractor In terms of the agreement, Rs. 53,912 and Rs. 663, respectively, being thehire charges payable by the assessee and other charges which the contractor had to meet in executing the contract. The accounts of the assesseewere rejected and such rejection was not disputed, before the Tribun...
The State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Govt., Triv ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker114
M.S. Menon C.J.1. These appeals by the State of Kerala are from a common Judgment holding that the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961, 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. Entry 49 in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution empowers the State to impose taxes on lands and buildings; and the contention of the State is that the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961, embodies a valid exercise of that power and that it does not in any way violate the equality guaranteed by the Constitution.2. The Act, as directed in Section 1, extends to the whole of the State and has to be deemed to have come into force on the 2nd of March 1961. The charging section is Section 4. It consists of two sub-sections and three explanations.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›