Kerala Court June 1971 Judgments
Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Incom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR363(Ker)
ISAAC J. - These applications have been made by the official liquidator of the Swaraj Motors (P.) Ltd. (in liquidation) under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with section 460(4) thereof for necessary directions in respect of certain legal proceedings which have been initiated by the respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Ernakulam, against the applicant.The respondent has issued to the applicant the following notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Notice under section 156 demanding payment of Rs. 57,070 being the income-tax assessed against the company for the year 1970-71;2. Notices under section 274 read with section 271 relating to the assessment years 1963-64 to the 1970-71 requiring the applicant to show cause why an order imposing penalty under section 271 should not be made;3. Notices under section 274 read with section 273 relating to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69 requiring the applicant to show cause why an order imposing penalty unde...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kamalaksha Pai Vs. Keshava Bhatta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker110
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Concurrent findings notwithstanding, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a point of law which, he cautioned, was not technical and insisted that the suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel on both sides, have argued at length and rulings galore have been cited which undoubtedly shed not only light but also demonstrated how simple factual situations may present themselves with puzzling visages wearing legal masks. Even here, I may state that the best that could be done to transmute a technicality into a substantial point has been done by appellant's counsel and I shall proceed to consider what I regard are the essential questions which seek resolution in this case. At the outset I may also state that I have always adopted the view -- and do so here --that law is essentially an instrument of justice although it may occasionally be at logger heads with it and the endeavour of the court should be to grant relief where it is due unless compelled...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Marar Vs. Sivarama Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker68
K. Sadasivan, J. 1. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal. He sued for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage as successor-in-interest of the mortgagor. The plaint schedule property belonged to one Padmanabha Marar who had executed a mortgage deed to the defendant on 3-1-1958 for a sum of Rs. 75/-, Padmanabha Marar assigned his jenmon right to the plaintiff on 18-11-1961. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the suit on 23-3-1962. The mortgage was admitted by the defendant; but his contention was that he was already in possession of the property under a varom arrangement and even if the mortgage is redeemed the varom will survive. Padmanabha Marar had executed two promissory notes to him on the strength of which a suit, O. S. 115/61, was filed by him and decree obtained. On the 8th of November. 1961 he applied for attachment of plaint schedule property in execution of the decree. Padmanabha Marar knowing about this executed an assignment in favour of the plaintiff, who is his elder b...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavi Amma Vs. Joseph Nadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker133
K. Sadasivan, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 13 are the appellants. Suit property belonged to the sub tarwad of the defendants. In the year 1118 a partition deed Ext. D-2 was executed in respect of the properties of the sub tarwad. The sub tarwad then consisted of 10 members. The properties were divided into 10 shares of which 3 were allotted to the group of the 12th defendant and defendants 1 and 13. The plaint property was included in the shares of defendants 1, 12 and 13. Defendants 1 and 13 were then minors. They were represented at the partition by their mother the 12th defendant. After the partition, mortgages and purakkadam were executed by the 12th defendant in her own behalf, and as guardian for defendants 1 and 13, The mortgage and purakkadam were later redeemed and the 1st defendant is in possession of the property. In the year 1955 some of the defendants joined together and executed another partition deed Ext. P-3 in respect of the same properties. The 12th defendant joined in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Harrisons and Crosfield Ltd. Vs. Kerala State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker329
1. Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 charges to tax motor vehicles 'used or kept for use in the State'. 'Motor Vehicle' is not a term defined in that Act but the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 would apply. That is so provided in the Act. The definition of 'Motor Vehicle' in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as contained in Section 2(18) of the Act is as follows:'Motor vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer: but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises'.It is apparent from the definition that motor vehicle must be one adapted for use on roads. It is the construction of this term that I am concerned with in the second appeal.2. Plaintiff company posse...
Tag this Judgment!The Vadakkekara Karshaka Samajom and ors., Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ252Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. These four writ petitions seek to quash a notification dated 27th December, 1968 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with Section 5(2) thereof, revising the rate of minimum wages payable to persons employed in agricultural operations in the State.2. This notification was attacked before my learned brother, Govindan Nair, J. in O.P. Nos. 814, 1074, 1099 and 1430 of 1969, who by a common judgment dated 4th June, 1971, rejected the contentions raised against the validity of the said notification and dismissed those petitions. Two of the contentions advanced before him were alone pressed before me. In order to appreciate those contentions, it is necessary to read Section 5 of the Act, and state a few facts leading to the issue of the said notification:5. Procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.--(1) In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and ors. Vs. Ammalu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker91
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. At one time polyandry was as much prevalent as polygamy in the community to which the parties to the suit belong, namely Thiyyas or South Malabar. They were no doubt, Hindus, governed by their own system regarding the marriage institution. The interesting question that has arisen in the suit concerns the widowhood of a woman who loses one of her three husbands by death. Naturally she continues as the wife of the other two. Can she be said to be the widow of the deceased husband so long as she continues to have the status of wife of the two surviving husbands? On remarriage of a widow she ceases to be one such any more. But where there is no remarriage but all the same she is a married woman by reason of the fact that she has two husbands alive could it be said that she cannot be a widow and a married woman at the same time? This question has arisen in the suit in the following way.2. Plaintiff was married by three brothers, one Karuppan and defendants 1 and 2....
Tag this Judgment!Adimali St. Paula Yakkobaya Suriyani Church Vs. Ithappiri Paily
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker180
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff. He sued the defendants in O. S. 78 of 1969 in the Devicolam Munsiff Court, for recovery of possession of a building with arrears of rent. The plaintiff averred that the plaint schedule property belonged to the plaintiff-church and it was leased out to the 1st defendant in 1965. The 1st defendant spent Rs. 295 for electrifying the building; but that amount was set off towards arrears of rent. The term of the lease expired on 25-7-1969 and a notice demanding surrender was issued on 5-9-1969. The 2nd defendant was impleaded as a sub-lessee. The 1st defendant contended that he was allowed to be in possession of the building even after the expiration of the lease. The building was constructed by him. He had also the contention that the plaintiff has no representative capacity to sue for the church. The alleged sub-lease to the 2nd defendant was denied.2. On 2-6-1970 the plaintiff filed I. A. 316/70 to record a compromise entered into betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnan Iyer Vs. Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker96
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The second counter-petitioner in I. P. No. 2 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tri-vandrum, is the revision-petitioner. The petitioner in the insolvency proceedings had filed I. P. No. 6 of 1961, and he was adjudicated insolvent. But that adjudication was annulled on 6-3-1964 for failure on his part to apply for discharge. So, I. P. No. 2 of 1965 was filed by him and he has again been adjudicated insolvent. The second counter-petitioner objected and the main points raised by him are:(1) that the adjudication in I. P. 2 of 1965 was made without the leave of the Court by which the order of adjudication was annulled; and(2) that Ext. P-1 order passed on 1-6-1965 according sanction to the insolvent was passed without notice to him, and as such it is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Subordinate Judge found against the revision petitioner on both the points which on appeal has been confirmed by the learned appellate Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Iyer Vs. Krishna Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker216
ORDERSadasivan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant of building No 12082 in ward XX (Now ward XXII) of the Ernakulam Municipality. R, C. P. 90/60 was filed before the Rent Controller bv the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent. Finally the matter reached this court in O. P. 1508/64 and before the learned Judge who heard the O. P. the respondent agreed to give time to the petitioner to vacate the premises till 31-12-1965 or in the alternative to pav up the entire arrears at the contract rate on or before the said date and continue in occupation of the premises. As the arrears were not paid as was agreed before this court, the respondent had to file the E. P. for eviction. While the E. P. was pending the respondent Cave the petitioner some more time to pav up the arrears and avoid eviction. On account of this extension of time, a contention was put forward on behalf of the tenant that a new ten-ancv thereby must be presumed to have been created and the eviction order already ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »