Kerala Court September 1968 Judgments
P.M. Kurien Vs. P.S. Raghavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker142
Raman Nayar, J.1. This case has a history, and it is necessary to set that out at some length for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised.2. Early in April 1966, the appellant, a student of the Government Victoria College, Palghat, who had just completed the first of the three years of the B.Sc. course of the Kerala University to which the College is affiliated, and sat for the annual promotion examination conducted by the College, received the following communication from the 1st respondent, the Principal of the College:'It has been reported that you have resorted to malpractice during the annual examinations. You are directed to explain in writing why disciplinary action shall not be taken against you. You should submit your explanation to the undersigned on or before 15-4-1966. If no written explanation is forthcoming, it will be presumed that you have no remarks to offer.'As a charge this was patently defective for it furnished no particulars whatsoever of the alleged malpr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Mariamma Abraham and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker265
Raman Nayar, J.1. These appeals and cross-objections arise out of proceedings taken under the provisions of the (Travancore) Land Acquisition Act (Act XI of 1089} for the acquisition of 1,72 acres of double-crop wet land and 56.54 acres of dry land (or garden land as If has been called) for the Kozha Agricul-fural Research Farm in the Kottayam District. The lands, it would appear, are contiguous lands lying in one block. The Collector made seven separate awards by which he granted a total compensation of Rs. 1.16.000/- (rounded off to the nearest thousand) exclusive of the 15% solatium and interest. Not content with this, the landowners (or plaintiffs as they have been called by the Court below in accordance with the instructions in the old Travancore Civil Courts Guide, the State Government being called the defendant) asked for a reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act, There were accordingly seven separate references all of which were heard together, the evidence being recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Kurian Chacko Vs. Varkey Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker316
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences.2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. Although there Is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they...
Tag this Judgment!K. Iswara Wariyar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR722(Ker)
1. The questions referred are:'(1) Whether the imposition of the penalty on the appellant is valid and sustainable ? (2) Having forwarded the certificate under Section 41 of the Act in respect of the arrears in question, whether it was within the competency and jurisdiction of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to impose the penalty in question 2. The applicant is the receiver appointed in a partition suit. The parties to this suit are the heirs of Mannarghat Moopil Nayar. Mannar-ghat Moopil Nayar died on January 3, 1960. The year of assessment is 1959-60. It is said that the Mannarghat Moopil Nayar has filed no returns though notices were issued to him under Sections 17(2) and 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. An assessment was, therefore, made for the year on the legal heirs of Mannarghat Moopil Nayar on February 26, 1962. For the realisation of the tax and super-tax amounting to Rs. 7,246.69 and surcharge thereon of Rs. 362.33 demand notices were alsoissued to the heirs....
Tag this Judgment!K. Srinivasan, A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., Alleppey Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker300; [1969]73ITR275(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. This is a reference made by the Madras Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the application of the assessee. The question referred is:'Whether the words 'income-tax' In the Finance Act, 1964 in Sub-section (2) (a) and Sub-section 2 (b) of Section 2 of the Finance Act 1964 would include surcharge and additional surcharge?'This is a novel and interesting question? and its decision depends merely on the correct interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.2. This question has arisen out of an assessment for the year 1964-65. The assessee is an individual; and his total Income was assessed at Rs. 45,173. This was made up of Rs. 42,635 under the head salary and Rs. 2,535/- under the head other sources. This total income was charged to income-tax, super-tax and surcharges at the rates provided in the Finance Act, 1964. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of this Act provides that when the total income of an assessee not be...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Kannan Kunhi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR757(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922, as directed by this court on the application of the assessee. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 60,813 or any portion thereof as the income of the assessee-family from undisclosed sources during the previous year ended March 31, 1951, relevant for the assessment year 1951-52 is valid and justified in law ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of Kannan Kunhi and his younger brothers, who are the sons of one Kollara Sankunni. He was carrying on business in Ceylon for quite a long time, until he returned to India in 1940 and finally settled down in his village, in Chowghat Taluk. Two years later, Kannan Kunhi started a business in Ceylon in partnership with others. The assessee started a business in India for the first time on August 17, 1950 (correspondi...
Tag this Judgment!B.F. Varghese (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR724(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. This is a reference made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 60(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as directed by this court on the application of the assessee. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,000 for default in the payment of the tax assessed for the year 1961-62 as per the assessment order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer dated January 21, 1965, which was act aside in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can be sustained ?'2. The assessee was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1961-62 by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer as per his order dated January 22, 1965. He filed an application under Section 40 of the Act not to treat him as a defaulter in respect of the tax demanded as per the assessment, pending the disposal of an appeal which he had filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!B.F. Varghese (No. 2) Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR726(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. These two references have been made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 60(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as directed by this court on applications made by the assessee, who is the same in both the cases. I.T.R. Case No. 51 relates to the assessment year 1960-61, while the other case relates to the year 1961-62. There is only one question referred in each case; and that question is the same, and it reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the yield of pepper returned by the assessee and confirming the estimated assessment of the yield by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner,'2. The assessee owns a pepper plantation, a small rubber estate, some paddy lands and his residential property. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 1,789.90. The assessee maintains proper accounts for the pepper plantation and rubber esta...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam (C.L.) Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ67Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, J.1. This writ petition prays to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner terminating in Ex. P. 8 order of respondent 1 removing the petitioner from service.2. Exhibit P. 1 dated 25 August 1963, issued by respondent 1, is the memorandum of charge together with the statement of allegations against the petitioner. The charge was that the petitioner, while functioning as Preventive Officer, grade II, Customs Office, Cochin, during the period from June 1962 up to 31 January 1963 contravened the provisions of Rule 12(1) of the Central Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (referred to as the Conduct Rules for short). The statement of allegations accompanying the charge stated that reply to letters dated 11 and 17 April 1962 from the petitioner, regarding the purchase and running of taxis by his wife, Smt. Brinda Lakshmi, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Collector of Customs that no permission was necessary as the purchase was statedly to be ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. New Dholaru Steamships Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker308
P. Narayana Pillai, J.1. The question in this appeal depends upon what is the true reading of the 3rd clause of paragraph 6 of Article III in the Schedule of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Central Act XXVI of 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is whether, when on the date of suit more than one year has elapsed from the date of departure from the port of delivery of the ship which carried the contracted goods but not from the last date of actual delivery of a portion of them the consignee has a subsisting right to claim compensation for short delivery.2. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid Article reads as follows:'6, Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, or, if the loss or damage be not apparent, within three days, such removal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »