Kerala Court October 1972 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.
Super Rubbers Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker114
Narayana Pillai, J.1. What is assailed in these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is certain orders passed by the (1st respondent, the State of Kerala, under Rule 113 (1) (b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules of 1971, for short, the 1971 Rules, regarding the cultivation of paddy in certain reclaimed paddy lands in the Vembanad lake in Kuttanad in the Alleppey District. The main petition is O. P. No. 4194 of 1972. Counter and reply affidavits have been Filed only in that original petition. The Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions agreed in submitting when these petitions were heard that as the fate of the other petitions depended upon that in O. P. No. 4194 of 1972 it would be sufficient if they were disposed of according to the decision in O. P, No. 4194 of 1972. In other words they said that if O. P. No. 4194 of 1972 was allowed, the other petitions also may be allowe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharmodayam Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR113(Ker)
Raghavan, C.J.1. The questions referred to us in the reference are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income derived by the assessee is exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that setting apart reserves under Article 39 of the assessee's memorandum did not vitiate the charitable purpose of the institution ' The assessee is a company which was originally registered under the Cochin Companies Act and later on under the Indian Companies Act of 1956. It was allowed to be registered with limited liability without the addition of the word 'limited' to its name by the Dewan of Cochin; and the registration was followed under the Indian Companies Act too. The sources of income of the company are interest on securities, income from property and business of conducting kuries (chit funds). In...
K.R. Gopinathan Nair Vs. T.N. Ittyavirah and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ842
V. Khalid, J.1. The Food Inspector. Kottayam Municipality, is the appellant, the complainant before the District Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. The offence against the accused was that he sold adulterated cow's milk, being below the prescribed standard. The Food Inspector added 18 drops of 'formalin' as preservative to the milk purchased by him and sent it for analysis. On analysis it was found to be adulterated in as much as it fell short of the prescribed specification.2. The learned District Magistrate found that the evidence of P.W. 1 was not corroborated by P.W. 2, that P.W. 2 is not an independent witness and is susceptible to the influence of P.W. 1, and hence there is a violation of Section 10 of the Act. It was also held that the report of the public analyst. Ext. P-8, cannot be relied upon, as the quantity of Preservative used was more than the prescribed maximum. On these findings, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. It is against this acquittal that this appeal is ...
In Re: A.i. Jaleel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker34
Narayana Pillai, J.1. In this revision taken up suo motu in reaard to C. C. No. 229 of 1972 on the file of the District Magistrate. Ernakulam a question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises.2. The case was started on a complaint filed by Sri. A. I. Jaleel. Ex-M. L. A., against the Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court. It was alleged that in the declaration given by the Chief Justice at the time of his appointment as a Judge of this Court he stated that his date of birth was June 5, 1915 when, as a matter of fact, it was May 21. 1911, that thereby he attempted to cheat the Government of money and that therefore he was guilty of the offences Dunishable under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 420 read with Section 511 of the I. P. C. The District Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and ordered summons to be issued to the Chief Justice.3. The Question as to whether the Chief Justice has given a false declaration of his age and attempted to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›