Kerala Court March 1968 Judgments
T.J. Kurian Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker68; 1969CriLJ393
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The petitioner and some others were charged under Sections 409, 477A, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Penal Code and also under cl. 14 of the Kerala Foodgrains Distribution Control Order read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Sub-Magistrate enquired into the case as P. E. C. No. 11 of 1967 and expressed the opinion that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner or any of the other accused persons committed offences falling under Sections 468, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code. He observed further that on perusal of the records the offences disclosed fell only under Sections 409, 477A, 419, 420 and 109 of the Penal Code and under clause 14 of the Kerala Foodgrains Distribution Control Order read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, he did not commit the accused persons for trial before the Court of Session. And he also felt that the offences mentioned in Sections 409, 477A, 419, 420 and ...
Tag this Judgment!United Mercantile Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR678(Ker)
ISSAC J. - This is a reference by the Madras Branch of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act), on the application of the assessee. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 18,578 transferred by the assessee to the Provident Fund Commissioner under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, was a capital expenditure within the meaning of rule 14(1) of Part A of Schedule IV of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was, therefore, not a permissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.'The Appellate Tribunal was furnished a very clear statement of the case; and it is enough if we quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of that statement for the facts of the case :'The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in printing and paper. The assessee-company was maintaining a privat...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Sreedharan Vs. P.S. Job
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker75
ORDERT.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner and the revision petition is directed against the order of the Court below refusing his application for amending the plaint. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3893.00 being the balance and interest thereon due from the defendant on account of pattuvaravu transactions. In the application for amending the plaint the plaintiff stated that the balance due from the defendant is Rs. 4721.55 and the sum of Rs. 3065.54 mentioned in the plaint as the balance due is a mistake and that he should be allowed to amend the plaint soas to claim the sum of Rs. 4721.55 and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 19-1-1966.2. The application for amendment was dismissed by the Court below as it took the view that it does not satisfy the requirements of law the amendment if allowed will change the character of the suit and the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application, as the resul...
Tag this Judgment!Lawrence (P.T.) and anr. Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ( ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ460Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 2401 of 1968 is a welfare officer attached to the Central Works of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation at Pappanamcode, Trivandrum. He had been originally recruited to Government service in the Transport Department of the Kerala State Government in the scale of Rs. 80-150 by appointment order dated 15 July 1957. There is some dispute between the parties as to the actual designation of the post in which the petitioner was so appointed, the petitioner claiming that he was appointed even initially as welfare officer, while according to the respondents the original appointment of the petitioner was in the designation 'labour inspector'. It is, however, admitted on behalf of respondent 1 that the post held by the petitioner was redesigned as welfare officer by virtue of a Government order dated 6 June 1958 and the pay-scale attached to the post was revised as Rs. 100-200 with effect from 1 April 1958.2. By Notificati...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Patel (V.M.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ468Ker
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The question involved in all these cases is one of jurisdiction ; and the industrial tribunal has decided that it has no jurisdiction to hear the cases. The State contests the correctness of the said decision.2. The State Government by notification in the official gazette under Section 85(1) of the Factories Act declared that to the establishments in these cases (the several respondents) Sections 1 - 26, 28 - 115, 117 and 118 of the Act should apply. Before the industrial tribunal it was urged by counsel of the respondents that since Section 2(m) of the Act containing the definition of 'factory' was also made applicable to these establishments, the intention of the State of apply the provisions of the Act had been frustrated. This contentions has been accepted by the industrial tribunal; and the correctness or otherwise of that decision is the question to be decided by me. 3. Section 85(1) gives the State Government power to declare by gazette notification that all ...
Tag this Judgment!Mudathamoole Sankappa Rai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker120; 1969CriLJ494
Raghavan, J.1. The Sessions Judge awarded capital punishment to the accused person; and Isaac, J., agreed with the Sessions Judge, while Mathew, J., preferred to award the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. The cases have been placed before me to resolve the tie.2. The Supreme Court has said in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 that the discretion to choose the punishment is on the trial Court, and if the trial Court imposes the lesser punishment, the Appellate Court will not interfere and award capital punishment unless it finds that no normal judicial mind would have awarded the lesser punishment in such a case. This Court has also pointed out this principle in Raman v. State of Kerala, ILR (1968) 1 Kerala 218. The position is different in a case where the trial Court awards capital punishment and the Appellate Court reduces it to life imprisonment. In such a case, any extenuating circumstance will justify the Appellate Court's action.3. In these cases. Mathew, J...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vs. Cheeran Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker232
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff-decree-holder is the appellant, and the matter arises in execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor is admittedly a kudiki-dappukaran in the plaint property belonging to the decree-holder. The decree is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the decree schedule property beyond 5 koles of his kudikidappu. According to the decree-holder, the defendant in violation of the decree trespassed beyond the aforesaid 5 koles and he, therefore, filed S. A. 538 of 1963 under Order 21, Rule 32, Civil P. C. to attach the judgment-debtor's property and thereby compel him to remove the fence which he had constructed in violation of the decree. The execution Court allowed the application and directed the defendant to remove the fence. The learned Judge in appeal took a different view on the ground that since the decree is one for prohibitory injunction there is no scope for applicability of Order 21, Rule 32, Civil P. C.2....
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Pally Vs. B. Kambil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ331
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. Two questions of law are raised in this revision petition by the counsel of the petitioner who is one of the members of the B Party in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first is whether the dispute in question relating to a right to have separate services conducted in a church by the B Party comes within the purview of Section 147. to call for action by the Magistrate. The counsel argues that the alleged dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace in the present case does not relate to a right of user of any land or water, so that Section 147 is inapplicable to the case. I do not think there is any force in this contention: and it has been uniformly held by almost all the High Courts in India that such a dispute relating to a right to perform service in a place of public worship like a church falls within Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not propose to discuss this question at any length, because the deci...
Tag this Judgment!E.A. Thomman and anr. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker130
Govindan Nair, J.1. These writ applications were heard along with a batch of other writ applications where common questions have been raised. It is agreed that the decision in these cases will govern the other petitions as well.2. The petitioners in these writ applications are all 'operators' within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). They impugn the validity of the Act. The grounds on which the Act is challenged may be grouped under five heads; (a) the enactment though it purports to be under Item 56 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, really does not fall within the ambit of that entry; in fact it has trespassed on legislative powers vested with the Union Parliament and is a colourable piece of legislation and is incompetent; (b) the Act violates Part XIII of the Constitution, particularly Article 301 thereof, and does not satisfy the require...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kunhikannan Vs. Agrl. Income-tax Officer, Badagara, and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: [1981]132ITR29(Ker)
GOPALAN NAMBIYAR J. - For the period November 1, 1956, to March 31, 1958, the petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax by order dated February 10, 1962. The appeal against this order was dismissed on November 18, 1962. Thereafter, by Ex. P-2 notice dated March 18, 1957, the petitioner as informed that revenue recovery proceedings would be taken against him unless the tax due is remitted on or before March 25, 1967. He was further informed that in default of remittance of the said amount within the said date, the 1st respondent would be compelled to impose a penalty on the petitioner. Exhibit P-2 notice refers to the fact that the petitioner has not remitted the tax due as required by the letter dated March 3, 1957.The petitioner objects to this notice on the ground that recovery proceedings are barred by reason of s. 41(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, which reads :'41. (4) No proceeding for the recovery of any sum payable under this act Shall be commenced after the exp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›