Kerala Court June 1972 Judgments
Official Liquidator Vs. K.K. Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1972
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas278(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. This is a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator of the Bharat Electric Company Ltd. under Sub-section (5) of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company was incorporated on August 29, 1953, as a private company and it was converted as a public company on November 23, 1959. The registered office of the company was originally at Alwaye and subsequently it was shifted to Trivandrum. The company was wound up by this court by its order dated February 19, 1970. The first accused was its general manager and one of the directors. The second accused is his wife ; and she was another director. The complainant called upon the accused by the notice dated March 16, 1970, to file the statement of affairs of the company as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 454 of the Act. They did not comply with the notice. Thereupon, the complainant moved this court for an order directing the accused to submit and verify the statement of affairs of the company as required by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandirayan Raman Vs. Velluvakandy Vasumathi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ315
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The revision arises from an order passed by the additional first class Magistrate, Tellicherry in M.C. No. 14 of 1970. The petitioner before me is the husband and the respondent the Wife. The wife filed M.C. No. 14 of 1970 under Section 488 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband. The learned Magistrate directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 90/- per mensem as maintenance to the wife. The husband took the matter before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The learned Sessions Judge refused to make a reference to this Court and dismissed the revision.2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 12th July, 1967 according to the customary rites at the Suryanarayana Temple, Kadirur. After the marriage, they stayed together for some time at Kadirur. Thereafter, the petitioner took the respondent to Bangalore where he is running a bakery. On 18th May, 1968 the petitioner brought back the respondent to Kadirur and left her at her house and the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Jokkim Fernadez Vs. Amina Kunhi Umma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Ker162
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. I regret that I have to disagree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 2. The main contention that is raised by the respondent is that as the appellate authority is not a court (civil or criminal) the provision contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. An answer to this contention must depend on a decision regarding the extent of the applicability of the principles contained in the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 3. The Limitation Act contains the general law of limitation of actions. The various Articles in the First Schedule of the Act prescribe the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. The Act also lays down in Sections 4 to 24 the general principles for determination of the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. They relate to the powers of the court to extend, exclu...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Sankaran Namboori Vs. Mathai Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker22
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in a Small Cause Suit, S. C. S. No. 1/70 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry.2. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 295/- made up of principal Rs. 250/- and interest thereon. The plaintiff's claim is based on Ext. P-2 dated 2-1-1967 purported to be a promissory note. The plaint proceeds on the footing that Ext. P-2 happened to be executed in renewal of Ext. P-1 promissory note dated 7-1-1964 for Rs. 200/-.3. The defendant contests the suit on various grounds. According to him, there is no consideration either for Ext. P-1 or Ext. P-2. He also contends that Ext. P-2 is not a promissory note as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Explaining the circumstances under which Exts. P-1 and P-2 happened to be executed, he has stated that the plaintiff's father was a tenant in respect of 10 acres of land belonging to his illom and that his grandfather had obtained a decree for eviction of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Sumathykutty Amma Kamalamma and ors. Vs. Narayani Panikkathy Karthiyay ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker19
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. Petitioners in O. P. No. 12of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara, are the revision petitioners. The petition is one under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The first defendant in the suit contests the matter.2. The allegation in the plaint is that defendants 2 to 4 alienated an item of property in which the petitioners also are entitled to have a share, in favour of the 1st defendant. This alienation is stated to be for acquisition of the property covered by Ext. D-l in the name of the revision petitioners and others. The first petitioner is the mother and petitioners 2 to 4 are her minor children.3. The revision petitioners contended inter alia that the alienation by defendants 2 to 4 was detrimental to their interests and the document under which that property was conveyed to a stranger is liable to be set aside. The prayer is that, as they are not possessed of sufficient means to p...
Tag this Judgment!The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Birlakootam Mavoor, Kozhi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker36
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. These writ petitions attack the constitutional validity of the Kerala Private Forests Vesting and Assignment Act 26 of 1971 passed into law on 23-8-1971 replacing an earlier Ordinance 14 of 1971. The Act is sought to be saved only under Article 31-A of the Constitution: and bereft of the protection of that Article, it was conceded that it would be unconstitutional. The only question therefore is whether the Act aualifies for the Protection of Article 31-A.2. The provisions of the Act are briefly these: The preamble states that private forests in Kerala are agricultural lands and that the Government consider that such agricultural lands should be so utilised as to increase the agricultural production in the State and to promote the welfare of the agricultural population in the State: and that to give effect to this, it is necessary that the private forests should vest in the Government-Section 2 is the definition section. Clause (f) thereof defines 'Private forest...
Tag this Judgment!Gates Foam and Rubber Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR422(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to this court:'Whether the reassessment made under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not a regular assessment and, therefore, the provisions of Section 273(b) could not be validly applied to such a case ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. It filed a return disclosing a total income of Rs. 34,480 for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessment was completed on November 18, 1966, and the total income was fixed at Rs. 37,250. The assessee had not filed an estimate of income as required by Section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (shortly referred to hereafter as 'the Act') and had not also paid advance tax. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 273(b) of the Act before completing the assessment.3. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer took action under Section 147 and there was reassessment, which was completed on September 11...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Kerala Balers Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR327(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - A common question arose in relation to the assessments for years 1962-63 and 1963-64 of M/s. Kerala Balers Ltd., Alleppey. This was disposed of by a common order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, and that Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the payment of a larger dividend would be unreasonable and in cancelling the Income-tax Officers orders under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 ?'The statutory minimum dividend applicable to the company is agreed to be 60 per cent. mentioned in section 109(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is also an agreed fact that for the relative accounting periods for the two assessment years which ended respectively on December 31, 1961, and December 31, 1962, this statutory minimum of 60 per cent. required by the above section ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1972
Reported in: [1975]98ITR291(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These two references are made to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In I.T.R. No. 31 of 1970, the question reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the company satisfies the requirements of Section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence it is a company in which the public are substantially interested '2. An identical question is raised in I.T.R. No. 32 of 1970. The assessee-companies in the two cases are different. The assessment years are also different. But the major shareholders of these companies are the same; and our answer to the question in one case will cover the other case too.3. During the period from December 31, 1960, to December 31, 1961, which was the previous year for the purpose of the assessment of the assessee-company in I.T.R. No. 31 of 1970 for the year 1962-63, 55 per ...
Tag this Judgment!General Electrical and Engineering Co., Trichur Vs. the Chief Engineer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Ker23
ORDERV. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This writ petition has been brought by a firm of partners engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of structural fabrications. pump sets etc. having its registered office and place of manufacture in Trichur town. The Chief Engineer (Projects), Government of Kerala--1 respondent-- issued a notification dated 10-11-1970 inviting tenders for the supply and erection of sixteen numbers of radial gates for the sluices of Pazhassi Barrage at Kuilur. In response to the said notification the petitioner firm submitted its tender on 8-3-1971 offering to supply and erect the gates in question for a total sum of Rs. 22,35,200/-. A copy of the tender submitted by the petitioner has been produced before this court and marked as Ext. P1. Altogether seven tenders were received by the 1st respondent and the petitioner's tender was found to be the lowest. Considerable time was taken up for reaching a final decision on the question of awarding the contract and ultim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »