Kerala Court July 1968 Judgments
Appukuttan Nayar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ103Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The main points raised in these original petitions are the same. So we propose to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.2. In the view that we are taking in these cases it is unnecessary to deal with all the contentions that have been raised in each of these petitions. We shall, however, refer to the main contentions.3. The validity of the order, Ex. P. 4 in Original Petition No. 1449 of 1967, Ex P. 4 in Original Petition No. 1450 of 1967, Ex. P. 5 in Original Petition No. 1530 of 1967 and Ex P. 4 in Original Petition No. 1958 of 1967 is challenged before us in these petitions. These exhibits are copies of the identical order passed by the State Government on 12 May 1967. To understand the contentions relating to the claim that this order has to be set aside, it is necessary to state a few facts.4. Earlier, the Governor of Kerala promulgated an Ordinance, the Kerala Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1966, on 22 December 1963, and the same was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.P. Johny and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR459(Ker)
Narayana Pillai, J.1. In this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, the question referred is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the income from the Trichur Vegetable Stores '2. The facts are as follows :Two persons, P.P. Johny and P.P. Devassikutty, constituted an ' association of persons '. This association conducted two businesses known as ' Trichur Vegetable Stores ' and ' Trichur Grocery '. P. P. Johny filed a return on December 6, I960, of his personal income for the assessment year 1960-61. He included in it his half share of the income from the ' Trichur Vegetable Stores ' as Rs. 257'09. The Income-tax Officer, after calling for and examining the separate books of account of the ' Trichur Vegetable Stores ', fixed its income for the relevant period as Rs. 2,724 and Johny's share of it as Rs. 1,362. The assessment on Johny was accordingly completed on December 17, 1960. Thereafter, the ...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Company Private Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC295(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of purchasing prawns, lobsters and frog legs, processing them in its factory at Cochin and selling them mostly to customers outside India and to a very limited extent to customers in India. Prawns and lobsters are taxable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the point of last purchase in the State. For the year 1964-65, the petitioner filed a return showing a net turnover of Rs. 16,83,180.62 in respect of purchase of these goods. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the petitioner's books of accounts and made a best judgment assessment. He fixed the net turnover by adding 40 per cent, of the returned turnover to make up for alleged suppression of purchases. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without any success. It filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the subordinate aut...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Pazhanimala and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker154
ORDER New Delhi, the 24th July, 1967. G. S. R. 1111. -- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation (Department of Food) No. G. S. R. 906, dated the 9th June, 1966 (as subsequently amended), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c). (d), (c), (f), (h), (i), (ii), and (i) of sub-section (2) thereof shall, in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable also by a State Government subject to the conditions- (1) that such powers shall be exercised by a State Government subject to such directions, if any, as may be issued by the Central Government in this behalf; (2) that before making an order relating to any matter specified in the said clauses (a), (c)...
Tag this Judgment!R. Raman Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker243
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1 Though this writ appeal was referred to a Full Bench along with W. A. Nos. 260 and 261 of 1967, the question to be decided is not the same as in those appeals. 2. The appellant Is conducting a rice mill at Pattazhi, having obtained a licence under the Rice Milling Industry Regulation Act, 1958. The licence is valid until 31-3-1968. Ex. P-l order was served upon the petitioner by the District Collector, Quilon, on 15-10-1967 stating that the Government of Kerala have stayed the working of the mill until further orders. In view of Ex. P-l, the Sub Divisional Officer, Electrical Sub Division, Punalur, issued Ext. P-2 informing the petitioner that the District Collector Quilon has issued directions to him to discontinue the electrical supply to the petitioner's rice mill. The Original Petition was filed to quash Exts. P-l and P-2. The learned Judge dismissed the petition holding that Ext. P-l is an interim order and it is open to the petitioner to move the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram (K.C.) Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ58Ker
ORDERV.R. Krishna Ayyar, J.1. The question raised in this civil revision petition filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is as to whether under the Minimum Wages Act a worker is entitled to wages during a period he has not been in employment, even if that was as a result of being denied employment by the employer. A preliminary objection has been rightly taken in these proceedings, as to whether a revision would lie at all. This, in turn, depends upon whether the authority functioning under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court. The argument for the petitioner was to the effect that the functions of the said authority were judicial, that rights were being adjudicated upon and that such a decision must be deemed to be one rendered by a Court, No doubt, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act is discharging: quasi-judicial functions, as distinguished from administrative duties. But, the question is. Does every tribunal become a Court I am ...
Tag this Judgment!United Mercantile Co. (P) Ltd., Calicut Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker227
Isaac, J. 1. This is a reference bythe Madras Bench 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 the 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 the 4th Schedule of Income-tax Act, 1961, and was, therefore, not a permissible deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act'.2. The Appellate Tribunal has 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...
Tag this Judgment!Kuruppath Ummer's son Arakkal Kuruppath Hameed Haji Vs. Keezhepadath R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker189
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The question arising in this miscellaneous appeal is whether or not the suit document is a promissory note. The trial Court has held that it is a promissory note; but the trial Judge has dismissed the suit since the document is not sufficiently stamped. Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.'No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon .........'In the proviso to the above section documents which can be admitted in evidence on payment of duty have been indicated. But the promissory note under consideration does not come under that category. The present promissory note is for Rs. 4,500/-, Under Article 49 of the Stamp Act the duty payable is the same as a bill of exchange and calculated on that basis the plaint promissory note is chargeable with Stamp Duty of Rs. 100/-. But the stamp affixed on the note is to the value of 40 Np...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subash Chandra Das Vs. the Inspector of Post Offices, Trivandrum, N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker244; [1971(21)FLR119]; (1970)ILLJ517Ker
ORDER1. The question referred for decision is the ambit of the representation that a Government servant is entitled to make on the penalty proposed under Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. That the representation can be only on the basis of the evidence adduced at the inquiry into the charges framed against him is clear from the wording of the clause itself,2. Clause (1) of Article 311 provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. And Clause (2), after its amendment by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, and omitting the proviso thereto which is not material to the case before us, reads as follows:--'No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charge...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax South Zon ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker205; [1969]23STC434(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon under Section 41 (1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to revise the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. Nos. 408 and 409 of 1966, The Aluminium Industries Ltd. is the respondent in both the cases. In the first case, the respondent was finally assessed for the year 1960-61 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 18-10-1962. In the second case, It was finally assessed for the year 1961-62 under; the same Act by the same officer by his order dated 29-10-1962. In both these assessments, the respondent made a claim for deduction of the trade discount paid to its customers from its gross turnover in determining the taxable turnover. This claim was allowed by the Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner took the view that this claim was not admissible under law. Accordingly, he took action under Section 15 (1) o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »