Kerala Court February 1972 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR83(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the assessee is exempt from tax under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? '2. The assessee is the Cochin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cochin, and the years of assessments are 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The memorandum of association of the Chamber contained clauses very similar, if not identical, to those of the Indian Chamber of Commerce whose case we considered in the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Chamber of Commerce, [1971] 80 I.T.R. 645 (Ker.). For activities similar to that carried on by the Indian Chamber of Commerce, namely, the issuance of certificates for survey and weighment, the assessee had received amounts in the accounti...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1095
ORDERE.K. Moidu, J.1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate Ottapalam under Section 51-A of the Kerala Police Act 5 of 1961 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45/-; in default to simple imprisonment for 2 days. The revision to this court is against the conviction and sentence.2. On 21-6-1971 the Sub-Inspector of Police Shoranur laid a charge against the petitioner alleging that at about 8.45 p.m. on 18-6-1971 the petitioner went to the Shoranur Police Station and indulged in a violent, riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour towards the Police uttering the following words directed against P. W. 2 the Police Constable who was on guard duty outside the Police Station: 'Are you not Mohamed Koya's man? Is the Sub-Inspector inside? Let me tell him about you. Where is the post-mortem certificate of the dead body of a person lying in the Kozhissery forest? I wanted to see it; if not I will enter inside and take it'. On hearing these words, P. W. 1 t...
Tag this Judgment!Arayakandy Achuthan Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Cannanore and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker113
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This is a petition sent from jail by one Arayakandy Achuthan, undergoing detention in the Central Jail, Cannannore under the Kerala Security Prisoners Order, 1971. He complains that the clothing to which he is entitled under Clause 8 of the above Order is not supplied to him by the jail authority. Under Clause 8, every security prisoner is entitled to six shirts, six pyjamas or clothings, six banians, six underwears and six towels annually. They can change the items according to their requirements. These items are to be given at the beginning of the detention. The clothing once issued to a security prisoner need not be surrendered at the time of his release from the jail. They are even permitted to make private arrangements at their own cost for additional clothings over and above what is supplied by the Government.2. The petitioner submits that even though about 1 1/2 months have elapsed since his detention, these clothings have not been supplied. He further co...
Tag this Judgment!Arayakandy Achuthan Vs. Superintendent Central Jail and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ998
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This is a petition sent from jail by one Arayakandy Achuthan, undergoing detention in the Central Jail, Cannannore under the Kerala Security Prisoners Order. 1971. He complains that the clothing to which he is entitled under clause 8 of the above Order is not supplied to him by the jail authority. Under clause 8, every security prisoner is entitled to six shirts, six pyjamas or clothings, six banians, six underwears .and six towels annually. They can change the items according to their requirements. These items are to be given at the beginning of the detention. The clothing once issued to a security prisoner need not be surrendered at the time of his release from the jail. They are even permitted to make private arrangements at their own cost for additional clothings over and above what is supplied by the Government.2. The petitioner submits that even though about 1 1/2 months have elapsed since his detention, these clothings have not been supplied. He further c...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Govindan Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker243
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. The challenge in this Original Petition is to the grant of a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore to run a service between Cannanore H. Q. Hospital and Azheekode. The grant is challenged as unwarranted by the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which enables the grant of temporary permits, 2. At the meeting held on 21-12-1971 the first respondent considered as Item 10 fa) the question of the proposal for the introduction of & pucca stage carriage service on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital-Azhikkal and as Item 10 (b) the question of grant to euo motu applications for a temporary permit on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital-Azheekode for a period of four months. On the first of these, the Regional Transport Authority took the decision that a pucca service should be introduced on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital to Azhik-kal Ferry. On the question of issue of temporary permit on the Cannanore H. Q. Hospi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Reghunath Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Ker48
Raghavan, C.J.1. We dismissed the writ petition with no order regarding costs stating that we would give our reasons for the dismissal later.2. The petitioner is an advocate practising in Tellioherry; and he as a tax-payer, has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State of Kerala and the District Collector. Cannanore to forbear from spending any amount from the public funds of Kerala State to reconstruct the places of worship destroyed during the recent disturbances at Tellicherry and the villages nearby. On the night of 29th-30th December 1971 (the counter-affidavit says it was on the night of 28th-29th) there were some unfortunate incidents at Tellicherry and the surrounding villages between two sections of the people. Hindus and Muslims; and as a result, some shops, buildings and places of worship of both the sections were destroyed. The Government started relief measures; and a sum of Rs. 25,000/...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thankappan Achari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1460
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner. Sri. M. Thankappan Achari. is a licensed sold dealer. On 9-10-1964 his residential house in Attingal Municipality was searched by the officers of the Central Excise Divisional Office. Trivandrum. on the strength of authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector. Central Excise. In the course of the search which lasted from 8.00 a. m. to 4.00 p. m. 28 articles of gold weighing in all. 4629.250 grams. were seized in the presence of witnesses for investigation under Rule 126L (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. A search mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the articles were weighed. It is admitted that the sold of which the articles were made, was above 14 carat in purity. In a statement, to the Assistant Collector dated 9-10-1964. the petitioner admitted that about 2000 grams were made for his family use. and the remaining were gold ornaments brought to his house from his workshop at the time of the introduction of t...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Pratap Rao Sait and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1135
K. Sadasivan, J.1. This appeal is by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Preventive Department, Customs House. Cochin. He was the complainant in SC. 1641 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The complaint was filed by him, alleging that the accused Pratap Rao Sait of Broadway. Ernakulam. committed offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act (Central Act 52 of 1962). It was alleged that smuggled gold was secreted by the accused in his premises, Door No. XVI/644 and 645, Broadway, Ernakulam, and on getting that information, the Assistant Collector of Customs issued an authorisation to the Preventive Inspector. Customs Office, Cochin (P, W. 4) to conduct search of the accused's premises. Accordingly, P. W. 4 and party conducted a search, and recovered M. Os. I to III (M.O. I. a tin; No. II two gold bars, and No. III gold sovereigns 17 in number) from Door No. XVI/644. The gold bars and sovereigns were kept in a tin concealed in a hole inside the chimn...
Tag this Judgment!Kochummini Kassinkunju Vs. Sankara Pillai, Velayudhan Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker190
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking the recovery of a half share in the plaint schedule properties on the ground that the suit items were purchased jointly by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant under the sale deed Ext. P-1 dated 26-8-1946 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- which is said to have been paid conjointly by both of them, each contributing one-half of the amount. The 1st defendant contended that the entire consideration for the purchase of the suit properties had been paid solely by him and that though the plaintiff's name had also been shown in the document as a joint purchaser, it was the common understanding of the parties that the title was to vest only in the 1st defendant and the plaintiff was to have no right or interest in the properties. It is the 1st defendant's case thatfrom the date of Ext. P-1 the entire properties were in his exclusive possession until an otti was executed b...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. P.M. Maitheyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker95
Unnikrishna Kurup, J. 1. The Kerala State Electricity Board, who was the defendant in a suit for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the electric lines drawn over the property of the respondent, is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent purchased a property, 38 1/2 cents in extent, comprised in Sy. Nos. 1084, 1085 and 1022 in the year 1962 from the previous owner, one Abdulla. The respondent requested the appellant to shift the electric lines, but there was no compliance. The respondent's case was that his predecessor had not given consent to the Electricity Board for laying the lines and the Board was therefore, in law, bound to remove the electric lines. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the Electricity Board had, under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with the relevant notifications issued thereunder, the power to take the electric lines over the plaint property even though it was a private land and that the appellant was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »