Kerala Court August 1968 Judgments
Sivaraman Nair Vs. Gopala Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker246
Raman Nayar, J. T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The appeal filed by the first defendant arises out of a suit for partition. The parties are governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932. The plaint properties belonged to Ravunni Nair father of the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2, 11 and 20. Defendants 3 to 10 are members of the tavazhi of the 2nd defendant Lakshmikutty Amma. Defendants 12 to 19 are members of the branch-of the 11th defendant Devaki Amma. Defendants 21 to 28 are members of the branch of the 20th defendant Karthayanikutty Amma. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the sons of Ravunni Nair.2. Ravunni Nair executed Ext, B-8 will, dated 10-10-1945, in respect of the plaint properties. According to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 10 who support him Ravunni Nair bequeathed the plaint Items to all his children subject to a life Interest over the plaint items in favour of his wife Sreedevi Amma. It is contended by the 1st defendant that under Ext B-8 Sreedevi Amma got ab...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of Agrl. I.T. Vs. Pullangode Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1968
Reported in: [1970]76ITR10(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. This is a reference made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-taxAppellate Tribunal under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act 1950,on the application of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, KErala. Thequestions referred are:'(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal right in holding that there is nothing in the agreement dated 19th February, 1962, to show that it was a composite agreement of lease and sale? (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal rightin holding that the agreement dated 19th February, 1962, is an agreement for anoutright sale of rubber trees? (iii) Is the Tribunal right in giving a literal interpretation to the agreement without duly considering the attendant circumstances like the unreasonableness of the time allowed for cutting and removing the trees, the unreasonableness of the amount shown as consideration for the sale of the rubber trees, that the trees are capable of being ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnummal Raghavan Vs. M. Narayana Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker15; 1970CriLJ53
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The appellant was directed to he prosecuted for offences under Sections 182 and 193 of the Penal Code by the District Judge of Tellicherry. The appellant (the defendant in a suit) lost before the trial court and filed an appeal before the District Court. He filed an application for stay of execution of the decree of the trial court; and in the affidavit in support of that petition, he alleged that he had executed a bond before the trial court to secure the decree that might be passed against him. The District Judge ordered interim stay; but, when the other side (the plaintiff) appeared and it was brought to the notice of the District Judge that no such security bond was completed by registration though a bond was prepared, the District Judge called for a report from the trial court. The report said that no security bond was registered: and then the District Judge vacated the interim stay and dismissed the petition for stay. Subsequently, the plain-tiff filed an appl...
Tag this Judgment!P. Muthukrishnan and Anr. Vs. Secretary, Modern Woodcrafts Employees' ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker288; (1969)ILLJ208Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. These Writ Petitions question the validity of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut.2. The petitioner In O. P. 3738/66, the Secretary, Modern Woodcrafts Employees Union, raised an industrial dispute concerning the wrongful dismissal of one K. Parameswaran Asari, an employee of the management (the 1st respondent in O. P. 3738/66), and the Government of Kerala referred the dispute for adjudication to the 2nd respondent. Before the 2nd respondent the main contention of the management was that Asari was dismissed after a proper domestic enquiry, and therefore, the tribunal should not interfere with the punishment imposed; whereas the Employees' Union contended that Asari was dismissed as a result of victimisation and unfair labour practice. The 2nd respondent passed an award on 6-7-1966 and it was published in the Gazette dated 20th September 1960, Ext. P-l is a copy of the Gazette.Parameswaran Asari was employed in the Woodcrafts on a daily wage of Rs. 3,50...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut-wynad Motor Service Private Ltd., Calicut Vs. the Industrial T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ212Ker
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, passed under Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), refusing approval to the action taken by the management in dismissing the 2nd respondent herein from the service of the petitioner.2. The order dismissing the 2nd respondent was passed by the management on 7-6-1966. It was communicated to the 2nd respondent on 8-12-1966. The application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the action was filed on 15-7-1966. The one month's salary was sent by money order to the 2nd respondent on8-12-1966.3. The tribunal held that the dismissal, the payment of one month's wages, and the application for approval must form part of the same transaction and since the application was filed on 15-7-1966 hut the order of dismissal was passed on 7-6-1966 and the one month's wages were tendered only o...
Tag this Judgment!A. K. T. K. M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam Vs. Commissioner of Agricultura ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR733(Ker)
ISAAC J. - The following two questions have been referred for the decision of this court by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, on the application of the assessee :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt from the sale of teak trees for the purpose of planting the area with rubber is capital in nature and exempt from the Agricultural Income-tax Act.2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the expenses incurred in the prior years for the purpose of obtaining the said agricultural income is allowable as deduction from the proceeds of the trees.The relevant assessment years are 1963-64 and 1964-65; and the corresponding previous years are 1137 M.E. and 1138 M.E. The assessee planted teak in 1122 M.E. for the purpose of deriving income by the sale of trees. In 1137 M.E., the teak trees were sold for a sum of Rs. 76,500 out of which she received Rs. 43,...
Tag this Judgment!Harihara Iyer Vs. Augusthi Devasia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker237
1. The 6th defendant in O. S. 73 of 1121 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Thodupuzha is the appellant before us.2. The matter arises in execution. When the decree-holder sought to execute the decree an objection petition was preferred by the 6th defendant raising the contention that he is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, Act 31 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The decree-holder put forward the plea that the decree amount represents the balance of unpaid sale consideration due by the vendee in respect of a transaction of sale of immovable property and is therefore a liability exempted from the purview of the Act by virtue of the specific exemption contained in Section 2 (c) (vii) of the Act. The executing court rejected this contention of the decree-holder and held that the 6th defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Act. It accordingly directed the decree-holder to file an amended execution petition stati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax, Kerala State, Trivandrum Vs. Nilambu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker238
Isaac, J.1. These are two references made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 60 (1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the application of the Commissioner of the Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala. The assessee is the same in both the cases; and the questions of law referred are also the same, and they read as follows;--1. Whether in the circumstances of the case the expenses for preparation of the Agrl. Income-tax returns are expenses allowable in determining the assessable income under the Agri. Income-tax Act.2. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the floating charge on the estates in Kerala will come under 'mortgage or other capital charge' in Section 5 (f) of the Agrl. Income-tax Act.3. Whether the floating charge on the estate in Kerala can be a charge on the said property unless and until the amount or a portion of it becomes irrecoverable from the properties specifically mortgaged for the amount...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakku Karthiayani Pillai Narayani Pillai and ors. Vs. Neelacanta Pil ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker280
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. Appeal by the 1st defendant, continued by her legal representative.2. The facts are thus: S. No. 529/5 and 11 of Nedumpana village belonged to the 1st defendant. It was sold for arrears of land revenue on 21st Karkatakam 1116 (1941) and purchased by the 2nd defendant who was also put in possession by the revenue authority. Ext. P2 is the relative sale certificate, and Ext. P3 the delivery report dated 3rd Kanni 1119 (1943). On 19th Kanni 1119 (1943) the 2nd defendant sold the western half ofthe property to the plaintiff as per Ext. P1 and the eastern half to one Cheriyan by another deed. In 1121 (1946) the 1st defendant applied to the Collector to set aside the revenue sale. Though the Collector dismissed it, the Board of Revenue in revision allowed it and set aside the sale in 1950. The 2nd defendant and Cheriyan were alone made parties to the proceedings: the plaintiff was not made a party to the proceedings either before the Collector or before the Board of R...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Nilambur Rubber Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR686(Ker)
ISSAC J. - These are two references made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the application of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala. The assessee is the same in both the cases; and the questions of law referred are also the same, and they read as follows :'1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the expenses for preparation of the agricultural income-tax returns are expenses allowable in determining the assessable income under the Agricultural Income-tax Act 2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the floating charge on the states in Kerala will come under mortgage or other capital charge in section 5(f) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act ?3. Whether the floating charge on the estate in Kerala can be a charge on the said property unless and until the amount or a portion of it becomes irrecoverable from the properties specifically mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »