Kerala Court December 1971 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Ananthan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: [1974]94ITR122(Ker)
Raghavan, C.J.1. The assessee's father, Kolappa Pillai, purchased from the Maharajah of Travancore on 18th August, 1956, a landed property known as Singarathope having an extent of a little over 9 acres situated within the municipal limits of Trivandrum town for Rs. 34,500, including registration expenses. The property was a garden land and had two wells and a tank I it had also facilities of electricity and tap water. The property had over 300 coconut trees, a few jack trees and other fruit-bearing trees thereon: it had also some sandalwood trees and flowering plants like jasmin. The Maharajah used to drive to the Singarathope during the evenings and spend some time there. On 23rd January, 1957, Kolappa Pillai made a settlement of the property on the assessee and his younger brother, the former getting 2 out of 3 shares and the latter getting the remaining third share.2. The same year the Government of Kerala initiated proceedings for acquiring the property for providing house sites f...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Bhaskaran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ204Ker
Govindan Nair, J.1. These petitions challenge the validity of the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The contentions urged were that the stipulations in the Act that the employers should make contribution towards a fund to be established under the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed under the Act, are repugnant to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, a Central enactment, and that the stipulation for contribution towards gratuity which must also be credited to the same fund it an unreasonable restriction on the right of an employer to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed by Article 19(I)(g) of the Constitution. Further, it was urged that the provision in Section 3 of the Act enabling the Government by notification in the Gazette to frame a scheme to be called the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme for the establishment of a fund under the Act is bad in that it provides for delegated legislation without giving ...
Tag this Judgment!Yacob Yohannan and anr. Vs. Rebecca Maria and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Ker96
Raghavan, C.J. 1. The short question in this second appeal is whether the estate conferred on a woman by name Che-cha under Ex. P-1 was an absolute estate with a repugnant clause added or was an absolute estate with a defeasance clause coming under Section 28 of the Transfer of Property Act added. Both the lower courts held that the document conferred an absolute estate on Checha with a defeasance clause super-added that, in case she died childless, the estate would revert to her sister, Maria, and her children (the plaintiffs).2. The counsel of the appellants (the defendants) has contended that what was conferred on Checha by the earlier recital in Ex. P-l was an absolute estate, so that the subsequent recital, which provided that, on the death of Checha leaving no children, the estate should revert to her sister and her children, is a repugnant provision repugnant to the absolute nature of the estate conferred on Checha by the earlier provision. This argument proceeds on a slight mis...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.P. Mohamed Babu Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: [1973]90ITR282(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the accountable person by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The questions of law referred are:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the properties (other than the residential house) gifted by the deceased to his children under the gift deed dated April 9, 1956, can be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased by virtue of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. and if so, to what extent (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the nursing home building gifted by the deceased to his son under the deed dated April 9, 1956, can be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased by virtue of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and if so, to what extent ' 2. The reference relates to the estate duty assessment relating to the estate of Dr. A. K. Kunhalu who died on August 12, 1963. The deceased by the deed of gif...
Tag this Judgment!Mayankutty and ors. Vs. Bappu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker164
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The question that is raised in this Second Appeal concerns the applicability of the provisions of the Kerala Agriculturists Pebt Relief Act 11 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the debt under the decree which is sought to be executed. Appellants are the judgment-debtors under a decree obtained on the strength of a promote. The promote was executed by the appellants, who are defendants in the suit, in favour of one Abdutty. It was for Rs. 2000/-. Out of this, Rs. 1500/- has been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 500/- was not paid and that an interest was due. The promote was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit by Abdutty on 10-8-1968 and the suit was filed as an endorsee of the pronote to recover the money claimed under the promote. That suit was decreed and it is in execution of that decree that the appellants, as judgment-debtors, sought to discharge the decree debt in instalments under Act 11 of 1970. This was allowed by the Munsiff ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Davood Khan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ110Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of the same facts; and they seek the same reliefs. Hence they have been heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The documents produced in both the cases are more or less the same; and I shall be referring in this judgment to the exhibits in O.P. 3607 of 1969.2. The Transport Department of Travancore Cochin recruited a large number of conductors in 1952, on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The petitioners in these cases, and respondents 1 to 4 in O.P. No. 3997 of 1969 were included in the advice list of the Commission. Respondent No. 4 in both cases is the same. Pursuant to the advice, the petitioners were appointed, but the said respondents were refused appointment, though they had higher ranks than the petitioner, in view of adverse police reports about them. However, these respondents were again advised for appointment by the Commission a few years later, and they were appointed on the basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekhara Mandian Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR564(Ker)
K. Sadasivan, J.1. Defendant is the revision-petitioner. The revision arises from an order rejecting the defendant's prayer to direct the 1st respondent-Income-tax Officer to produce the returns filed by the plaintiff in the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Palghat, during the period 57-69(sic). The Income-tax Officer claimed privilege, as according to him records relating to the years 1957 to March 31, 1964, are entitled to protection under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the year 1957-68 (sic) no returns were filed by the plaintiff. The first return filed by the assessee related to the period April 1, 1958, .to March 31, 1959. The documents, however, were produced in sealed covers for the perusal of the court. The learned subordinate judge upholding the privilege claimed by the Income-tax Officer has rejected the petition.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued basing mainly on a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Choyyeri Abdulla Vs. Erancherry Illath Damodaran Namboodiri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker116
Raghavan, C.J. 1. This is a case slightly out of the ordinary as will presently appear.2. There was a suit against the appellant (the first defendant) and others: and the suit was dismissed. Pending appeal before the Subordinate Judge, one of the defendants died. That was not noted; and in the appeal, the Subordinate Judge set aside the decision of the Munsif and sent the case back for fresh disposal. Pending the case before the Munsif after the remand, the death of the defendant was noted and that was brought to the notice of the Munsit Applications for setting aside abatement and for impleading the legal representatives were also filed before the Munsif, The Munsif. since he had no jurisdiction to implead the legal representatives, sent the case to the Subordinate Judge with a report; and after the case reached the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff (the contesting respondent) filed applications before the Subordinate Judge for setting aside abatement and for impleading the legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Harry Leslie and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: [1973]92ITR22(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 64(1) of the Estate DutyAct at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala. The followingquestion has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the 'circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Section 10 of the ' Estate Duty Act is not attracted in respect of the shares of the sons of the deceased '2. In his application for reference the Controller of Estate Duty required the following question also to be referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had sufficient material to hold that the value of the arecanut plantation has to be deleted from the principal value of the estate '3. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal refused to refer the above question as in its view it is not a question of law.4. Counsel for the revenue has filed C.M.P. No. 10381 of 1971 requesting this court to raise ...
Tag this Judgment!Beera Koya Vs. Ali Koya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker254
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. The tenants, defeated in all the courts below, have come up in revision. Against them the landlord filed R. C. O. P No. 304/66 under Section 11 (2), (3) and (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) for eviction. Eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of sub-letting; the other grounds were all found in favour of the tenants. This order of the Rent Controller stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the District Judge in revision. The learned counsel has pressed before this Court a new ground which was never taken by him in any of the courts below. The ground is that the Addl. Munsiff who dealt with the matter was not competent to deal with the case, as under the relevant notification creating the Court of the Bent Controller, Addl. Munsiffs are excluded in stations where there are more Munsiffs than one. According to the learned counsel, the Principal Munsiff at the station alone can a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »