Kerala Court January 1973 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.
Joseph Vs. Joseph and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker206
K. Sadasivan, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He sued for declaration of a right of way and consequential reliefs. The plaintiff's property is survey No. 2315/2, known as 'Kangazha Parambu' lying to the east of the 1st defendant's property survey No. 2316/3, known as 'Pazhiyanikal Purayidom'. On the southern boundary of the defendant's property there are kayyalas and still south of the kayyala a pathway runs east-west up to the plaintiff's property in the east Still south of the pathway is one Attin-gal Turayidom which also belongs to the 1st defendant. The northern boundary of Attingal purayidom also is bounded by kayyalas. The pathway which is 8 feet in width runs in between the southern kayyala of Pazhaniyankal purayidom and the northern kayyala of At-tingal purayidom. The plaintiff has been using this pathway for ingress to and egress from his property for a large number of years now. Defendants are trying to lessen the width of the pathway by shifting the alignment of the ka...
P.M.C. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR312(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is in these terms :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 28(i)(c) was justified ?'2. When a question of this nature is referred to us, we naturally turn to Anwar Ali's case and that is the decision that has been relied on by counsel for the assessee which is in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, [1970] 76 I.T.R.696 ; [1961] 1 S.C.R. 446 (S.C.). We have had occasion to deal with this aspect in a number of decisions and as far as we can remember in all cases where the penalty has been imposed merely on the ground that the Tribunal in the appeal from the assessment had found the explanation of the assessee in relation to a credit entry unsustainable, that by itself did not provide the base for the imposition of penalty. For the imposition of penalty a greater degree of proof was insisted upon and there must be clear finding on t...
K.A. George Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ550
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is against an order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Ernakulam, dismissing a petition for issue of summons, filed by the revision petitioner.2. The complainant-revision petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the first accused had committed an act of forgery in connivance with the second accused. The 3rd accused is stated to be a former Secretary. The complainant was, during the material time, the Treasurer of Wepco Employees' Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., of which the first accused was the Secretary. It is stated that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 675/- odd at the time when the first accused handed over charge to the second accused. It is further stated that this shortage was noted in the depot nalvazhi of the society. Subsequently, I am told, the society passed a resolution to write off the amount, which was acknowledged by the first accused at the time of handing over charge, as disclosed by the entry made by the firs...
State Vs. A. Aboobacker and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ218
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. This reference is by the learned Sessions Judge Palghat. In S. T. Case No. 248 of 1971 the 1st accused was acquitted and the 2nd accused convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days for an offence under Sections 42 and 129-A read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the First Class Magistrate of Mannarghat. The case against the accused was that the lorry KLR 3944 of which the 1st accused was the owner was driven by the 2nd accused carrying 23 passengers. The offence, according to the prosecution, is that the vehicle was used in violation of the conditions of the permit. The trial Court having found that it was not proved that the 1st accused was the owner of the vehicle, acquitted him but convicted the 2nd accused having been satisfied that he had actually driven the vehicle carrying passengers. In revision, the correctness of this order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge who, a...
A.K. Abdulla, Kasaragod Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker242
Govindan Nair, J.1. The first two prayers in this petition are to :'(i) declare Clause 4 of the Kerala Cycle Tyres and Tubes (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order 1966 as invalid as it is beyond the competence of the State Government.(ii) declare Clause 5 of the Kerala Cycle Tyres and Tubes (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1966 to be invalid as the power sought to be exercised is beyond what has been conferred on the State Government.''2. The Kerala Cycle Tyres and Tubes (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) was passed by the State Government on 16th August, 1966 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Clauses (e), (h), (i) and (j) of Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce dated 18th June, 1966. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Or...
Thommen Ouseph Vs. Iype Paily and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker164
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The main question involved in this civil revision petition filed under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Eeforms Act. (1 of 19641 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is whether the parties to proceedings for fixation of fair rent before the Lend Tribunal are in terms of Section 102 of the Act. entitled to file cross-examination in an appeal filed by the opposite side.2. The revision petitioner filed an application under Section 31 of the Act for fixation of fair rent of the holding alleged to have been held bv him under the respondents. The respondents filed a joint statement before the Land Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the lease was for lemon grass cultivation and that no improvement was effected by the revision petitioner on the land. Subsequently an additional statement was filed to contend that the revision petitioner was a licensee, not a lessee, and, therefore, by virtue of Section 3 (3) of the Act. fair rent could not be fixed. After going into th...
M.P. Paul Vs. A.M. Ali Mohemmed and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1284
ORDERE.K. Moidu, J.1. The question of law arising in this Criminal Revision Petition is: what is the true meaning and scope of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code in the context of Section 479-A(1) and (6), Criminal Procedure Code, with regard to a prosecution authorised by a court in respect of an offence of periurv committed before it in the course of the trial2. This question came up for consideration before this Court on account oi a complaint which was directed to be launched by the Addl. Munsif-Rent Controller Ernakulam under Sections 195(1)(b) and 476(1), Criminal Procedure Code in respect of offences under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code before the District Magistratp (Judicial), Ernakulam, against the petitioner. The 1st respondent instituted a proceeding under Section H of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the petitioner for eviction out of a building which the 1st respondent leased to him. before the Munsif Rent Controller. In the cours...
V.P. Syed Mohammed Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1551
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. This criminal revision is by the accused who has been convicted under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act and Section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, no separate sentence having been awarded for the offence under the Gold Control Act.2. Various grounds have been taken in the criminal revision petition challenging the validity of the orders that have been passed by the courts below. The main argument by Sri. P. K. Hamza, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, however is that inasmuch as the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the article seized is gold, the conviction and sentence cannot sustain. As a decision on this point would be sufficient to dispose of this revision petition, it may not be necessary for me to go into the other grounds raised in the petition.3. The facts of the case are rather simple. I...
Asma Beevi Vs. Haji M.V. Moidu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker161
Namboodiripad, J.1. The Question raised is whether proper court-fee has been paid on the memorandum of appeal filed in an appeal preferred under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The suit which gave rise to this proceeding was laid by the appellant-plaintiff for realisation of an amount of Rs. 3,138.20 charged on the property scheduled to the plaint. Ad valorem court-fee was paid on the amount claimed under Section 22 of the Kerala Court-fees end Suits Valuation Act, 10 of 1960 (for short, the Act), in the trial Court, in the first appellate Court and in S A, 1182/1969 of this Court In the memorandum of appeal now under consideration, the valuation shown is the original claim, namely. Rs. 3,138.20. but the fixed court-fee of Rs. ID/- alone was paid re-(Contd, on Col. 2)lying on Schedule II. Article 3 (A) (2) (a) of the Act The Taxing Officer raised the objection that ad valorem court-fee is payable on the valuation shown under Section 52 of the Act.2. The relevant provision...
K.P. Narayanan (for the Estate of Late P.K. Raman of Colombo) Vs. Comm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR130(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is in these terms :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the income of the estate of late Sri P.K. Raman in the hands of Sri K.P. Narayanan has to be made under Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 '2. The facts and circumstances of the case are that one Sri P. K. Raman who was ordinarily resident in Ceylon and who was doing business in Colombo had executed a will dated June 21, 1945, (annexure 'A'), bequeathing large estates and properties owned by the said Raman. Mundan, the brother of Raman, was appointed executor under the will. Raman died on June 8, 1948. Till and up to the assessment year 1954-55, the assessments were made on Mundan in his capacity as the executor of the estate of late P. K. Raman. Though on the basis of a return filed by Mundanfor the assessment year 1955-56, an assessment had been made, that assessment was set as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›