Kerala Court October 1968 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.
C.V. Madhava Mannadiar Vs. District Collector and Addl. District Magis ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker50; 1970CriLJ344
Raman Nayar, J. 1. The point that falls to be determined in this application for a writ of habeas corpus Questioning the detention of the petitioner under Section 3. Sub-section (1) (a) (iii), of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (the Act, for short) is whether the 1st respondent, described as the District Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Palghat who ordered the detention (by means of Ext. P-1 dated 30-9-1968) had the authority to do so. For the rest, the ground for the detention as disclosed by the memorandum. Ext. P-2, of the same date, duly served on the petitioner as required by Section 7 of the Act, namely, that the petitioner was habitually engaging himself in the unlawful transport of paddy from the district of Palghat to the adjoining areas of the Madras State, and that he was thus hindering the procurement of paddy in the district the purpose of equitable distribution under the scheme of rationing thereby prejudicing the maintenance of supplies essential to the c...
Francis (T.J.) and anr. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ114Ker
P. Govindan Nayar, J.1. These two petitions raise a common question and are disposed of by this judgment.2. The petitioners were Junior commissioned officers in the Indian Army. Both of them have been discharged and the contentions specifically raised in the petitions are that under Regulation 165, said to be applicable to the petitioners, they were entitled to continue in service till they completed 28 years of service and that neither of them had completed 28 years of service when they were discharged. The petitioners were discharged pursuant to the decision embodied in Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 as surplus to requirements. It was decided as is seen from Ex. P. 1 that all persons above 50 years holding the rank of the junior commissioned officers should be discharged and there is a list appended to Ex. P. 2 in Original Petition No. 1903 mentioning the names of thirteen parsons as those to be retrenched. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 1903 is the second-named person there and the pet...
K. Madhava Nayak and ors. Vs. Popular Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker131
1. These appeals were heard along with, and in continuation of Appeals Nos. 137, 139, 140 of 1963, etc., in which we have just delivered judgment. They arise from. Application No. 2 of 1959 filed by the Official Liquidator of the Popular Bank Ltd., under Section 543 of the Companies Act. The parties to this application are, with one difference, the same as the parties to Application No. 1 of 1959 against which A. S. Nos. 137, 139, 140 of 1963, etc., were directed, the only difference being, that the 9th respondent in Application No. 1 of 1959, is not a party hereto. The result is, that Respondents 10 and 11 in Application No. 1 of 1959 are respondents 9 and 10 in Application No. 2 of 1959. Save where expressly indicated reference would hereinafter be made to the ranks of the parties as before the Trial Judge.2. Application No. 2 of 1959 sought to make the Respondents liable for misfeasance and breach of trust, in relation to the Company, and for misapplication and retainer of the money...
income Tax Officer, Kottayam Vs. R.M. Subramania Iyer S/O Ramasubha Iy ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker14; [1970]77ITR453(Ker)
1. The Income-tax Officer, Kottayam is the appellant. He has challenged the decision of Mr. Justice M.U. Isaac allowing an original petition 805 of 1966 moved by the respondent seeking to quash a notice Ext. P-1 purported to he under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as a further notice Ext. P-5 under Section 143(2) of the same Act. Various contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge and had been considered by the Single Judge and many questions have also been argued before us on which we express no opinion whatever in view of the injunction contained in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalji Haridas v. R.H. Bhatt, : [1965]55ITR415(SC) . A part of the judgment was quoted by the learned Judge. But it appears to us that the full impact of the judgment has not been realised by the learned Judge.The relevant passage runs thus: --'Mr. Pathak for the appellant attempted to argue that the notice issued against the appellant is, on the face of it, invalid, because...
K. Nagendra Prabhu and ors. Vs. Popular Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker120
1. The Popular Bank Ltd., now in liquidation was incorporated in 1944 with head-office in Alleppey. It established three branch offices at Vaikom, Shertalai and Kuthiathode respectively. The Bank suspended business on the 16th August 1956. A petition for winding up the Bank was presented in this Court and was ordered on the 19th December 1956. Thereafter, two applications were made by the Official Liquidator of the Bank. Application No. 1 of 1959 from which these appeals arise, was under Section 542(1) of the Companies Act 1956, read with Rules 260 to 262 of the Companies Court Rules 1959. Application 2 of 1959 from which the connected appeals heard along with these arise, was under section 543 of the Companies Act, read with section 45H of the Banking Companies Act 1949. These were disposed of by our learned brother Raghavan J.2. Except where expressly indicated, reference hereinafter would be to the ranks of the parties as in application No. 1 of 1959 which appears to have been treat...
K. Madhava Nayak Vs. Popular Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas711(Ker)
1. These appeals were heard along with, and in continuation of Appeals Nos. 137, 139 and 140 of 1963, etc., in which we have just delivered judgment. They arise from Application No. 2 of 1959 filed by the official liquidator of the Popular Bank Ltd., under Section 543 of the Companies Act. The parties to this application are, with one difference, the same as the parties to Application No. 1 of 1959 against which A.S. Nos. 137, 139 and 140 of 1963, etc., were directed, the only difference being that the 9th respondent in Application No. 1 of 1959 is not a party hereto. The result is that respondents Nos. 10 and 11 in Application No. 1 of 1959 are respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in Application No. 2 of 1959. Save where expressly indicated, reference would hereinafter be made to the ranks of the parties as before the trial judge.2. Application No. 2 of 1959 sought to make the respondents liable for misfeasance and breach of trust, in relation to the company, and for misapplication and retainer ...
K. Kuttappan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR426(Ker)
Narayana Pillai, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, arising out of the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 for which the corresponding valuation date is August 16, 1961. 2. The dispute involved in the reference relates to whether an amount of Rs. 19,438 being the value of a property standing in the name of the assessee's wife is includible in the net wealth of the assessee. 3. The facts can be summarised in this way : The property was purchased by the assessee's wife on June 12, 1951, for Rs. 17,750. It was the assessee who paid the whole consideration for the sale. He included the value of the property in his previous wealth-tax returns and the income from the property in income-tax returns. In his return for the relevant assessment year he showed the value of the property as Rs. 19,438 but claimed exemption under Section 4(4) of the Act. According to him it was on account of a...
Miss Thressia C. Nidhiyiri Joint Proprietor, Nidhiyiri Estate and anr. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ511Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of an industrial dispute which culminated in an award by the industrial tribunal, Calicut, evidenced by Ex. P. 1 dated 16 June 1966. Original Petition No. 3368 of 1966 is filed by the management and Original Petition No. 3378 of 1966 by the workman whose alleged wrongful termination from service formed the subject-matter of the industrial dispute.2. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 8368 of 1966, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is the owner of a rubber estate having an extant of about 174 acres. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 3378 of 1966 hereinafter referred as the workman, was employed there as a maistri until 20 April 1964 on which date the management retrenched him from service under the order produced and marked before the tribunal as Ex. W. 7. The workers' union raised an industrial dispute challenging the bona fides and validity of this retrenchment on the ground that it was an act of victimi...
Central Bank of India Ltd., Bombay Vs. V. Gopinathan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker74
K.K. Mathew, J.1. These appeals are directed against the decree and the judgment in O. S. No. 19 of 1954 of the District Court, Alleppey, subsequently renumbered as O. S. No. 229 of 1956 of the Alleppey Sub-court. The 1st defendant is the appellant in S. A. No. 1120 of 1964 and the 2nd defendant in S. A. No. 1287 of 1964.2. The suit was for recovery of the amount covered by Ext. P-1, a demand draft, and the interest thereon, from defendants 1 to 3.3. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a business carried on at Alleppey in the name and style of 'The Pioneer Trades', Kama Prasad Auddy, P. W. 2 carried on a business at Calcutta in the name and style of M/s. Hurry Dass Auddy. M/s. Hurry Dass Auddy was a customer of the New Market branch of the Central Bank of India, Ltd., the 1st defendant.4. The plaintiff used to purchase goods from M/s. Hurry Dass Auddy from 1953 onwards and pay the price thereof sometimes by purchasing demand drafts from the Alleppey branch of the 1st defendant-Bank on i...
C.T. Palu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR641(Ker)
Isaac, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the application of the assessee. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to registration for the assessment year 1963-64 under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The firm Messrs. C. T. Palu & Sons was originally formed with four partners under a deed of partnership dated April 15, 1957. The partners of the firm were (1) C. T. Palu, (2) Chinnamma, the wife of Palu, (3) Thomas and (4) Joseph, parties (3) and (4) being the sons of parties (1) and (2). Joseph was then a minor; and he was represented in the execution of the deed by Palu, who was his legal guardian. Palu retired from the firm with effect from November 30, 1960; and consequently the firm was reconstituted by the three remaining partners by a deed dated December 1, 1960. Joseph, the minor, was represented in this deed by the mother as guardian. Appendix 'B'...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »