Kerala Court September 1966 Judgments
Mathai Mathew and ors. Vs. Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker174
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. This appeal is by unsuccessful writ applicants who filed a petition before this Court to set aside an order Ext. P-3 imposing penalty for non-payment of certain amounts covered by two earlier orders Exts. P-1 and P-2.2 Exts. P-l and P-2 were passed against the appellants for alleged concealment of income and for non-payment of advanced tax under Section 18A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The question is whether a penalty can be imposed for non-payment of penalty. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that the provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which admittedly is the relevant statute, do not warrant such procedure. In this submission the appellants are supported by a decision of this court in M. W. Mathew v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, . There is yet another decision of this Court in Padmanabha Menon Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Southern Division, Bangalore, : [1957]32ITR651(Ker) where the same view has be...
Tag this Judgment!Seshan (V.) (Manager, Umayal Weaving Establishment No. 2 Factories) Vs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ423Ker
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This revision petition is against the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal and Special First class Magistrate, Kozhikode, in Calendar Case No. 191 of 1963 convicting the petitioner who is the manager of the Umayal Weaving Establishment, Factory No. 2, Cannanore, for failure to submit the returns for the half-year ending 31 July 1963 as enjoined under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 127 of the Kerala Factories Rules, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. It is admitted that the particular return was not sent. The case of the accused was that the Factories Act does not apply to his establishment and that no offence is committed. So the question that arises In the case is whether the Umayal Weaving Establishment No. 2 is a factory as envisaged under the Factories Act, 1948.2. The complainant was examined as F.W. 1. In his evidence he has proved Ex. P. 1 the notice calling upon the accused to send the half-yearly return. As it was not Bent, a show-cause notice E...
Tag this Judgment!Alphonse Ligouri Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas138(Ker)
ORDERKrishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of Meenachil in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 42 of 1951 passed by the District Court of Kottayam in favour of the Bank of Meenachil Ltd. (in liquidation) passed the order sought to be revised returning the claim petition or objection to attachment filed by the revision petitioner under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, to the attachment of immovable properties effected before judgment on the ground that under Section 456 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, the High Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same.2. The official liquidator filed Report No. 82 in B, C. P. No. 6 of 1951, which relates to the winding up of the Bank of Meenachil Ltd., under Section 45C(2) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, bringing to the notice of this court the pendency of the proceedings to execute the decree in O. S. No. 42 of 1951 of the District Court, Kottayam, in the Meenachil sub-court. Since this court did...
Tag this Judgment!K. Moideenkutty Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC302(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. This writ applicant has again raised the question which has often been mooted before this Court and before other Courts as well. The question relates to the powers of the Sales Tax Officer to make a best judgment assessment under Section 12 (2) (b) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. That section enables the officer to assess a dealer 'to the best of his judgment'. That such an assessment involved an element of guess has always been accepted. It has also been accepted that in making such assessments there cannot be an arithmetical precision as the assessment should depend upon so many factors some of which at least are not capable of quantitative analysis. It must therefore be based on honest guesses to some extent. Even so, the Courts have insisted that the process is a quasi-judicial one and that therefore the assessments must be based on material. This has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. The State of Bihar [1957] 8 S.T.C. 7...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kunhalumma and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, B. Ward, Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker173
1. This appeal is by unsuccessful writ applicants who filed a petition before this Court to set aside an order Ext. P-3 imposing penalty for non-payment of certain amounts covered by two earlier orders Exts. P-1 and P-2.2. Exts. P-l and P-2 were passed against the appellants for alleged concealment of income and for non-payment of advanced tax under Section 18A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The question is whether a penalty can be imposed for non-payment of penalty. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that the provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which admittedly is the relevant statute, do not warrant such procedure. In this submission the appellants are supported by a decision of this court in M. W. Mathew v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, . There is yet another decision of this Court in Padmanabha Menon Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Southern Division, Bangalore, : [1957]32ITR651(Ker) where the same view has been taken.3. Notw...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhalaumma and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer Calicut.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: [1968]68ITR840(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - This appeal is by unsuccessful writ applicants who filed a petition before this court to set aside an order, exhibit P-8, imposing penalty for non-payment of certain amounts covered by two earlier penalty orders, exhibits P-1 and P-2.Exhibits P-1 and P-2 were passed against the appellants for alleged concealment of income and for non-payment of advance tax under section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question is whether a penalty can be imposed for non-payment of penalty. The submission of behalf of the appellants is that the provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which admittedly is the relevant statute, do not warrant such procedure. In this submission the appellants are supported by a decision of this court in M. M. Mathew v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam. There is yet another decision of this court in Padmanabha menon Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the same view has been taken.Notwithstanding the above dec...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Namboodiripad Vs. Thomakutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker163
ORDER1. The decree-holder auction purchaser is the revision petitioner. In execution of the decree, the decree schedule properties were sold in court auction on 6-2-1961 and purchased by the decree-holder for Rs- 154.37 in satisfaction of the decree. The court auction was confirmed on 10-3-1961. The respondents who arc the judgment-debtors filed an application on 20-3-1901 under Sections 47 and 151 and Order 21. Rule 90. C. P. C. to set aside the court sale The execution court held that in view of the omission to affix the proclamation of sale in the properly sold and the omission to publish the same by beat of drum there was material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale as a result of which the respondents sustained substantial injury.The learned Munsiff also look the view that the application to set aside the sale filed on 20-3-1961 was not barred by limitation as the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The learned Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Bavajee Fakkir Muhammed and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1641
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. On March 12, 1966, the Sub Inspector of Police at Chengannur found the petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 211 of 1966, travelling in taxi with Rs. 25,000 odd in currency notes and certain documents of strange contents. As he could not account for his possessions, the Sub Inspector suspected some sharp practice and therefore, seized the documents the terms 'documents' in this judgment includes currency notes and arrested the accused. On information obtained from him the Circle Inspector, Chengannur, went to the house of the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 236 of 1966 and recovered another sum Rs. 11,000 in currency notes the same day. All the documents thus seized were sent to the Court of the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur. After investigation, the Police reported to the Magistrate that no crime cognizable by them could be detected and that they suspected the accused to be a member of an international gang engaged in violations of the Foreign Exchange laws. The petitioners h...
Tag this Judgment!Phipson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC200(Ker)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. M/s. Phipson & Co. Ltd., Ernakulam branch, the petitioner, is a registered dealer. For the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, petitioner filed its returns before the respondent and accounts were submitted to support the returns. Petitioner claimed exemption from tax in respect of certain transactions. The facts relating thereto are as follows : Petitioner sells U.B. Light Lager Beer and U.B. Sun Lager Beer. Under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, wines and liquors other than toddy came within Schedule I to the Act. According to the Schedule the rate of tax on liquor was 40 paise in the rupee. Under Section 5 (vii) of the above Act, the sale of goods included in Schedule I was liable to tax only at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be specified by Government by notification in the Gazette, and where the taxable point so specified is a point of sale the seller was liable to tax on the turnover for which the goods are sold by him at such point....
Tag this Judgment!B. Moosa Mohammad and ors. Vs. Amin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker194; 1967CriLJ1330
Govinda Menon, J. 1. In these four petitions each of the petitioners were proceeded against under Section 10-C (b) of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation-1 of 1012 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). Proceedings were started on the report of the Amin of the Minicoy Island that these four petitioners have been indulging in a false propaganda against the Island administration and that action under Section 10-C of the Regulation has to be taken against them. Section 10-C (b) of the Regulation reads as follows :--'Whenever, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Inspecting Officer or tie Collector or any of the Collector's Assistants empowered under Sub-section (1) of Section 10-A is satisfied that any person in the islands- (b) is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or dirturb the public tranquillity, or XX XX he may require such person to execute a bond......
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »