Kerala Court July 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.
Koruthu Oommen Vs. G. Rama Warrier and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker26
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. Decree-holder in O. S. No.160 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the petitioner in E. A. No. 1404 of 1966 on the file of the said Munsiff's Court, wherein the revision petitioner herein is the counter-petitioner.2. The revision petitioner obtained a decree personally against one Sankara Warrier in the said suit, O. S. 160/62, and in execution thereof attached a sum of Rs. 1200/- deposited by the said Warrier in O. S. No. 105/56 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mavelikkara. The said Sankara Warrier, judgment-debtor in the said suit O. S. 160/62, was the 28th defendant in the suit O. S. No. 105/56. The deposit was made by him for obtaining stay of the decree in O. S. 105/56 as directed by this Court in the order on a stay petition filed in A. S.No. 178 of 1962. Ext. X-1 dated 31-1-1967 is the copy of revised judgment in O. S. 105/56 after remand by this Court, and Ext. X-2 dated 25-5-1962 is the copy...
Muthukrishna Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR503(Ker)
Sadasivan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has made this reference and the question referred is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are legal and valid?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant previous year being 1137 M.E. The original assessment was completed on March 16,1964. The Income-tax Officer subsequently reopened the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act') on the ground that the capital gains arising to the assessee on account of the transfer of a property had not been brought to tax. Following facts are relevant in this connection:A property by name Machungal Purayidom belonged originally to the assessee's wife, Ratnammal. She died on October 21, 1954, leaving a will whereby the property was bequeathed to her 4 daughters, Nagammal, Maya Devi, Rajeswari and V...
Collector of Customs and Central Excise, CochIn Vs. Markose Arnaeutaki ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker7
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise from the judgment of Nara-yana Pillai, J. in O. P. 4733 of 1969, which is reported in 1972 Ker LT 231 = (AIR 1972 Ker 192). By this judgment Narayana Pillai, J. set aside the imposition of personal penalty on the respondent-Markos Arnaeu-takis, Captain, S. T. Speedway-of Rupees 75,000/-; imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act) as also the direction to the respondent to pay Rs. 70,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the vessel S. T., Speedway, under the proviso to Section 115(2) of the Act, as well as the direction to the respondent to pay the import duty of Rs. 22,815.00 leviable on 39 cases of whisky, said to have been smuggled from the store of the vessel. The penalty has been imposed and the direction to pay the sum of Rs. 70,000/- in lieu of confiscation and the direction to pay the duty have been given by the Order Ex. P-5 passed by the Collector of Customs and produ...
T.N. Sudhakaran and anr. Vs. E.M. George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ542
ORDERE.K. Moidu, J.1. I am afraid that the procedure adopted by the Executive I-Class Magistrate, Fort Cochin, is not in accordance with law and consequently the case will have to be heard afresh.2. On a police report or on other Information, on taking evidence if any and if the Magistrate thinks fit that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any way. river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public or from any public place (that is the complaint made in the instant case), the concerned Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, within the time to be fixed in the order, to remove such obstruction, and if he objects to do so, to appear before the Magistrate at a specified time and place to be fixed by the order and move to have the' order set aside or modified. This is the procedure to be followed to begin with under Section 133 Cr.P.C. so far as it relates to the facts of the instant case. Such...
G. Narayana Pillai Vs. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instrucation ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ360Ker
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. This original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the manager of an aided High School. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 respectively, are the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum, the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara and the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary. The 3rd respondent, a teacher in the petitioner's school, holds T.T.C. and has also passed Malayalam Vidwan examination. He has not, however, undergone the language teachers' training. As matters stood originally, teachers who did not undergo the language teachers' training were not considered to be qualified for promotion as High School Assistants. However, by Government Order No. 415/Edn. dated 29-4-1959 and subsequent D.O. letter No. M5. 9692/69 dated 20-2-1969 and Director's proceedings dated 22-10-1969, it was directed that teachers with T.T.C. could be promoted to the post of High School Assistants till 31-3-1970, that thereafter no person wit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.C. Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR88(Ker)
N.D.P. Namboodiripad, J. 1. The question referred for the opinion of the court is: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 32,000 cannot be subjected to tax as capital gains ' 2. The reference arises out of an assessment for the year 1965-66. The assessee had been practising as a chartered accountant at Kottayam under the firm name 'Jacob & Mathew' from the year 1951. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee took in as his partner, another chartered accountant, Sri. Venkatanarayanan, on July 15, 1965; and annexure 'D' is the deed of partnership datedJuly 15, 1965, entered into between the two partners. The main item in the assets of the assessee which were taken over by the newly constituted firm was the goodwill which was valued at Rs. 32,000. As between the assessee and his partner, the net profit or loss of the business of the partnership was a...
N. Karuppan Vs. M. Sankaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker28
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit O. S. No. 841 of 1968 on the file of the Munsifi's Court, Manjeri. The suit was one for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was originally decreed ex parte, but that decree was set aside on 16-8-1969. Thereafter the suit was posted for filing written statement of the defendant to 12-9-1969. No written statement was filed on that day and the case was adjourned to 26-9-1969. That day also the statement was not filed. Further time was granted till 3-10-1969, and yet the written statement was not filed. Thereafter time was granted upto 21-10-1969. That day not only no written statement was filed, but the defendant was not presented also, and his Advocate reported no instructions. The Court, therefore, again decreed the suit ex parte.2. On 31-10-1969 the defendant filed I.A. No. 2809/69 under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree stating inter alia that he was laid...
A.V. Balan Vs. the District Collector, Trichur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker88
Raghavan, C.J.1. The question We have to consider in this miscellaneous petition is whether the petitioner can claim to be a pauper under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apparently, Order 33 applies only to suits. The Supreme Court has said in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946 that the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is original jurisdiction as distinguished from the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and that it may be described as extraordinary original jurisdiction. In another decision, viz., Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532, the Supreme Court has said that the proceedings under Article 226 are not suits. It is thus clear beyond doubt that Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies only to suits, cannot apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, which are not suits.2. Mr. M. S. Kurien, the counsel of the petitioner, has brought to our notice the...
M.O. Devassia and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR525(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. A common question mentioned hereunder has been referred to this court by the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of the various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that a registered firm was not entitled to have its losses in speculation business carried forward for set off against future profits in speculation business ?'2. The following are the facts: The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in hill produce, cocoanut oil, etc. at Palai, Cochin and Alleppey, Apart from regular trade in these commodities, the assessee was also carrying on a business in speculation. For the assessment year 1964-65 the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 33,013 relating to speculation business and the Income-tax Officer, on assessment, determined the loss at Rs. 40,510. For the assessment year 19...
Raman Pillay Kesava Pillay and ors. Vs. Kochukunju Sankaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker248
Namboodiripad, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for redemption. S A. No 1212/68 is by defendants 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 while S. A. No. 62/69 is by the 1st plaintiff.2. The suit property which originally belonged to the Illom of the 1st defendant was outstanding on otti in (favour of one Krishnan. While, so. the father of the 1st defendant executed Ext, P-3 'Mellottiyadharam' (superior mortgage) in favour of one Raman Pillai the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 14 authorising the mortgagee to redeem the prior mortgage. It is common case that the mortgagee Raman Pillai redeemed the prior mortgage and reduced the property to his possession. Ex. P-3 was followed by two 'purakkadam' deeds, Exts. P-4 and P-5, whereby the Illom borrowed further amounts from Raman Pillai charging the suit property. Under Ext. P-8 udampady in the Illom the 1st defendant obtained the equity of redemption of the suit property. The 1st plaintiff purchased that right from the 1st defendant as per E...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »