Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker38
1. These appeals from the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court have been placed before a Full Bench in view of certain interesting questions of law, arising for consideration. We shall first take up A. S. Nos. 562 and 629 of 1963.A. S. Nos. 562 and 629 of 1963.2. These arise out of O. S. No. 256 of 1952, Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum, a suit for redemption. Redemption was sought of an otti-kuzhikanam (Ext.-- C dated 29-9-1104) for a terra of six years executed by the 10th Defendant in the suit and her mother Matha Kali to one Kumaran Mathu the husband of the 1st Defendant and father of Defendants 2 to 4. Plaintiff is the assignee of the equity of redemption under Ext. A dated 11-7-1951 Defendants 5 to 9 have been found to be trespassers on the mortgaged property after the mortgage. There was a suit O. S. No. 2123 of 1105 (M.E.) by Kumaran Mathu to evict the trespassers. Defendants 1 and 2 in that suit were Defendants 5 and 6 in the redemption suit. Matha Kali was the 4th Defendant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker8
1. These Second Appeals arise from proceedings in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 41 of 1962. The appellants arc the decree-holders and the respondents are defendants 1 to 3. Two applications, E. A. No. 166 of 1965 and E. A. No. 321 of 1966 were moved by the defendants; one by defendants 1 to 3 and the other by the first defendant, under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code, to set aside an execution sale held pursuant to the Execution Petition 1075 of 1965, on 10-11-1965. The grounds on which these applications were filed are material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. The Execution Court allowed these applications. Though the Appellate Court in appeal came to the conclusion that there is no material irregularity or fraud and that there has been no undervaluation it confirmed the setting aside of the sale on the grounds (1) 'that there is absence of sanction to bid' and (2) 'the sale is held without jurisdiction in view of the absence of fresh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1970]26STC530(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Against the petitioner in this tax revision case the Assistant Sales Tax Officer completed a nil assessment fixing the turnover at Rs. 9,000. Subsequently, some secret accounts were recovered from the petitioner's shop and some information was also received from a third party that the petitioner effected regular sales for a considerably higher amount. Basing on these, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax called for the papers exercising his powers of revision and issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why the nil assessment should not be set aside and the Sales Tax Officer be directed to make further investigation in the matter. The petitioner appeared and objected, but the Deputy Commissioner overruled his objection, set aside the nil assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer (since the escaped turnover was above Rs. 20,000) to make further investigation with a view to assess the escaped turnover. The petitioner took up the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1970]26STC122(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. Whether pine-apple is a vegetable and consequently a green fruit, is the short question to be decided in this tax revision case. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, on the ground that pine-apple was a green fruit coming under item 10 of the Third Schedule to the Act. This claim was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that pine-apple was a green fruit is challenged before us.2. The assessee did not appear and therefore, we requested Mr. M.I. Joseph to appear amicus curiae and assist us. Mr. Joseph has placed a few decisions and has also adduced some useful arguments on the question before us.3. Two decisions of the Supreme Court are brought to our notice ; and they are Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola [1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 and Motipur Zamindary Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker270
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. A decree for redemption of Ext. Dl dated 24-4-1085 and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties was passed on 12-6-1959. After the passing of Act I of 1964 the 4th defendant contended that Ext. Dl is a transaction which will attract the benefits of Act 1 of 1964 and claimed fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the said Act. The claim of the 4th defendant was allowed by the learned Munsiff. But on appeal the learned District Judge of Allepey disallowed the claim for the reason that in view of the decree overruling the plea of the 4th defendant that Ext. Dl is not redeemable he is debarred from raising the contention in execution. The correctness of this view is challenged before us in the second appeal.2. The learned appellate Judge has not expressed any opinion on the nature of Ext. Dl. His view is based on the decision of one of us sitting single in Kuriau v. Chacko, 1965 Ker LT 453. The said decision was based on the wording of Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1970]77ITR292(Ker)
Raghavan, J. 1. A short yet important question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the revenue. We may at the outset state a few facts even before we extract the question.2. The assessee is a firm of lawyers, Joseph & George, and the partners have been carrying on their profession as an unregistered firm. On 10th April, 1964, they drew up a document of partnership embodying the terms and constitution of the firm, and, on the same day, they applied for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1964-65, the accounting year being from 1st April, 1963, to 31st March, 1964. Since the application for registration was not filed before the close of the previous year, an application for condoning delay was filed, the reason for the delay being that the senior partner of the firm was ill. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied about the reason ; and he consequently excused the delay. But he did not register the firm, as, in his opinion, the docume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1970]77ITR455(Ker)
Raghavan, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal admitted additional evidence when the appeal was pending before it; and the questions referred to us canvass the correctness of the action of the Appellate Tribunal. The first question referred is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the principle that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by a court in granting relief to parties is applicable in the matter of assessment of the tea income of the company under the Agricultural Income-tax Act '2. We do not extract the second question, because we feel that the result of the second question will depend upon the answer we give to the first question.3. The question is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence regarding a subsequent event. We think that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. If any authority is required for the purpose, the decision of the Supreme Court in Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1970CriLJ1173
ORDERE.K. Moidu, J.1. The petitioner, who was the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5, has come up in revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petn, No. 862/68 which arose out of miscellaneous case No. 54/62 of the same court enhancing the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents 2 to 5 from Rs. 22 to Rs. 50 a month.2. The respondents filed miscellaneous case No. 54/62 in the lower court under Section 488, Criminal P. C., for maintenance alleging that the petitioner neglected to maintain them. During the pendency of that petition the marriage relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was dissolved through court and the claim of respondents 2 to 5 for maintenance to be paid by the petitioner was also settled on the basis of a compromise petition put in the lower court on 7-2-63. The petitioner and the 1st respondent allowed an order to be passed by the lower court gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker51
1. This appeal arises out of a land acquisition proceeding begun under the provisions of the (Travancore) Land Acquisition Act and completed under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are identical and therefore we shall refer, only to the provisions of the latter Act which we shall hereafter call, the Act.2. The property acquired, 12.55 acres of land, situated, we are told by the learned Advocate General, near the beach within the limits of the Corporation of Trivandrum, belonged to three brothers who were at the relevant time residing in Malaya. They are Christians and held the property as tenants-in-common. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to them by the Collector (a Special Land Acquisition Tahsildar, whom we shall hereafter refer to as the Land Acquisition Officer) on 12-3-1963 calling upon them to file their claims by 29-3-1963. The notices, it would appear, were sent by registered surface--mail, and, seeing that t...
Tag this Judgment!