Kerala Court December 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.C. Velayudhan Vs. the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ304Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by an employer who has been directed by the first respondent, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Kerala, by its order, Ext. P-1, dated 24th July, 1969, to pay to his dismissed employee, the second respondent, a sum of Rs. 468 being the wages payable to him in respect of the period from 1-4-1968 to 15-10-1968. This order has been made on an application made under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.2. The second respondent was admittedly an employee of the petitioner, who dismissed him on 15-10-1968, after conducting an enquiry against him for misconduct. The second respondent filed an application under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, questioning the dismissal, and claiming reinstatement with back wages. That application is pending. The petitioner contended before the first respondent that the second respondent's application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was not maintai...
P. Kochukrishna Pillai Vs. Achi Ammal Ammalu Ammal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker257
K.K. Moidu, J. 1. The question that arises for decision in this revision petition is whether the. sufficiency of a notice to quit which is shown to have been issued to a tenant in occupation of a building can be raised for the first time in appeal.2. The petitioner was sought to be evicted out of a building which is in his occupation as tenant under the respondent on the ground that the petitioner kept the rent in arrears and that the respondent-landlord wanted thebuilding for her bona fide occupation. These contentions of the respondent were repelled by the Rent Controller dismissing the respondent's application for eviction. But. in appeal, the Appellate Authority found that the ground for eviction due to arrears of rent was sustain-able and eviction was ordered. That order was also confirmed in revision by the Revisional Authority, which is the District Judge. Both the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority did not permit the revision petitioner to raise the content...
Ganapathi Koundan and ors. Vs. Natarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker168
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench on the grounds that there is an apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court reported in Sadasivan Pillai v. State, 1959 Ker LT 501, and Vellakutty v. Karthiyani, 1967 Ker LT 667 = (AIR 1968 Ker 179). 2. The second appeal which is filed by defendants 2 to 10 arises out of a suit for permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the plaint property by the plaintiff. 3. The plaint schedule property is a paddy land covering an extent or 1 acre 80 cents. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and it was decreed by the learned appellate Judge. 4. The plaintiff claims possession of the plaint schedule property in pursuance to the delivery in execution, of the decree in O. S. 65 of 1957 on the file of the Palghat sub Court evidenced by Ext. P-2. The defendants while denying the title and possession of the plaintiff claim to be in possession, of the property. The defendants deny ...
Padinjarekkara Punnen Kurien and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR284(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to us at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the supertax levied under Section 23A on the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61 is in accordance with law ?'2. The super-tax was levied under Section 23A of the Indian Income-taxAct, 1922, the relevant part of which as it stood at that time is in theseterms:'23A. Power to assess companies to super-tax on undistributed income in certain cases.--(1) Where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that in respect of any previous year the profits and gains distributed as dividends by any company within the twelve months immediately following the expiry of that previous year are less than the statutory percentage of the total income of the company of that previous year as reduced by- (a) the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the ...
Bhagwandas Krishnadas and anr. Vs. P.S. Sama Iyer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker259
Raghavan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against a second appeal; and the appeal is directed against the decision in Bhagwandas Krishnadas v. P. S. Soma Iyer, AIR 1969 Ker 263. 2. For the arrears of revenue due from the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (the appellants are his legal representatives), his property was sold under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act and purchased by the respondents. The sale was on 15th May 1954 and the confirmation of sale on 30th November 1954: and thereafter, the appellants continued to live in some of the buildings in the property, which they surrendered on 21st October 1955. The suit was for mesne profits from the date of sale to the date of confirmation of sale (from 15th May 1954 to 30th November 1954) and for damages for use and occupation of the buildings from the date of confirmation to the date of surrender of the buildings (from 30th November 1954 to 21st October 1955). (Regarding the amount there is no dispute now.) The trial Court dismissed t...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Mary Antony (Legal Heir of Late Dr. C.J. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR469(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is a reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the department in relation to an assessment for the year 1964-65. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift was made partly for the education of the assessee's son and was to that extent exempt from tax under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in relying on the clarification, deed dated August 23, 1966?' 2. The previous year for the assessment year 1964-65 was the period that ended on March 31, 1964; On March 25, 1964, the assessee, one Dr. C. J. Antony, made a gift of a property situate in the town of Ernakulam having an extent of 19 cents with a building thereon in favour of his son who was at that time studying in the Loyola College, Madras. The property was valued at Rs. 20,000 in the gift dee...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR666(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the revenue and the question referred is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of interest till the date of the award is capital receipt ?'2. The question arose with reference to the assessment of the Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. for the year 1963-64. During the year that ended on December 31, 1963, the relevant accounting period for the assessment year, the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 24,103.33. This amount was paid as compensation by way of interest on the compensation amount payable to the assessee on compulsory acquisition of land that belonged to the company under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession of the land was taken by the Government not under the provisions of the Land A...
Joseph Abraham Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1459
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This revision arises from an order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate. Alleppey in a proceeding under Section 133. Criminal P.C. relating to the closing of a Thodu alleged to have been used by the petitioner and others of the locality. The Thodu according to the report of the Tahsildar Kuttanad runs through the registered land of the revision petitioner (respondent before the court below). Under a preliminary order passed by the learned Magistrate on 26-2-1966 the counter-petitioner was directed to remove the obstruction caused to the Thodu or to appear before the Magistrate to show cause why the order should not be executed. On 13-7-1966 the counter-petitioner revision petitioner filed hi objections; a witness schedule was also filed by him. Learned Magistrate with out proceeding under Section 139-A of the Code has straightway passed the present order relying mainly on the local inspection notes left by his predecessor-in-office.What the learned Mag...
K.S. Abdulla Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker202
V.P. gopalan Nmbiyar, J.1. The larger question that has been debated in this writ petition is whether the refusal of licence to the petitioner for a gun under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act 1959 was justified or proper. After hearing Counsel, I am satisfied that without going into this larger question, this writ petition can well be disposed of on a shorter and narrower ground.2. Ex. P-1 is a copy of the petitioner's application for licence for a gun (pistol). It sets out the reasons why the petitioner felt it necessary to be in possession of a pistol. The application was rejected by Ex. P-2 order, passed by the Special Secretary to Government, which reads:--'I am directed to invite your attention to the application cited and to inform you that your request for the grant of a licence to possess one pistol is hereby rejected on the ground that Government deem it necessary for public safety to refuse the grant of licence to you'.The petitioner complained that as a result of the dis...
C.V. Xavier Vs. J. and J. De Chane
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker263
Raghavan, C.J.1. This is an application under Order 41, Rule 19 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-admitting an appeal dismissed for default. We may state a few facts to reveal the circumstances under which the appeal came to be dismissed.2. The appeal was in the hearing list in August 1971, over five years after the appeal was filed. The appeal was called, when the counsel of the appellant, Sri Manuel T. Paikeday, was not present. The name of the appellant was then called; and the appellant appeared and asked for time saying that his lawyer was away. We adjourned the case to 13th September, after the Onam holidays, since the appellant submitted that it would take some time for another lawyer to get ready with the case. After the Onam holidays, the case was again taken up for hearing on 20th September. Sri Manuel T. Paikedav himself appeared on 20th September; and the case was heard for about a day. 21st September was a holiday; and on the 22nd and the 23rd the couns...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »