Kerala Court September 1969 Judgments
isha Beevi and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1969
Reported in: [1971]80ITR82(Ker)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants are the wives and children of one Thangal Kunju Musaliar, who died on February 19, 1966. At the time of his death, he was in arrears of income-tax due both under the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. By an order passed on June 10, 1968 (marked as exhibit P-1 in all the writ petitions), the Additional Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Quilon, functioning as Tax Recovery Officer, attached the immovable properties scheduled to the order, by prohibiting the appellants from transferring or otherwise dealing with them under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of 22 certificates covering a total amount of Rs. 50,42,970.34. Some of the certificates were issued under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the others under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Thangal Kunju Musaliar had before his death executed gift deeds of immovable properties in 1947, 1953, 19...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rev. Mother Provincial, Congregation of Mother of Carmel, Carmelite ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker196
ORDER1. The petitioners in these applications brought under Article 226 of the Constitution are persons running affiliated private colleges in the districts to which the Kerala University Act, 1969 (for short, the 'Act') applies, namely, the revenue districts of Trivandrum, Quilon, Alleppey, Kottayam and Ernakulam. The colleges all of which receive aid out of State funds and all of which are open to the general public, belong to the petitioners in the sense that legal title to, though perhaps no beneficial interest in, what are ordinarily regarded as the properties of a college, namely, the lands and buildings and other properties, moveable and immoveable, required to run it, vests in them. The petitioners assail certain provisions of Chapters VIII and IX of the Act on the score that these provisions are violative of the fundamental rights vouchsafed by Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 26 and 31 of the Constitution. By far the majority of the petitioners (thirty-three out of thirty-six) run what...
Tag this Judgment!Mathen Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ117
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The accused Mathen Joseph, has been convicted by the District Magistrate, Alleppey Under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act (shortly etated the Act) read with Clause 3 of the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966 (shortly stated the Order) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/.. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Alleppey.2. The prosecution case is that the accused failed to measure the required quantity of paddy as per notice issued to him. According to the prosecution, two notices were issued and they are Exs. P5 and P6 in the case. Under Ex. P5 dated 2.3-67 the accused was called upon to measure 13 quintals and 17 kilograms of paddy from the paddy field comprised in S. No. 910/3 of Alleppey village and under Ex. P6 dated 16-2.67 he was required to measure 59 quintals and 5 kilograms of paddy from the property comprised in S. No. 411/1 of Aryad South ...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Ramankutty Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker191; 1970CriLJ1103
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (wrongly filed as Cr. M. P.) to revise an order of the Sub-Magistrate I, Kozhikode in C. M. P. No. 38 of 1969. That petition was filed for release of a motor car K.L.D. 8488, which was seized by the Police in the course of investigation of a crime. The petitioner is the registered owner of the car; and it was seized on the ground that it really belonged to the accused, who purchased it with Government money alleged to have been misappropriated by him. The petition was rejected by the Magistrate stating that the police had not produced the car in Court, and that the question of releasing the car would arise only if and when the car was produced in Court. 2. It is not disputed that the seizure of the car was reported to the Court as required by Section 523, Criminal P, C., butthe petition was mainly resisted by the police, stating that it was required for the purpose of investigation, and that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›