Kerala Court October 1973 Judgments
Vasu Vyudier Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ494
ORDERK. Bhaskaran J.1. The question posed in this revision petition is whether the proceedings pending before a criminal court should be stayed or adjourned in view of the fact that substantially the identical issues based on the same facts as in the criminal case are involved in suits that were awaiting trial in civil courts.2. The facts leading to this criminal revision petition are as follows: C.C. No. 15 of 1972 on the file of the court of the Special Judge, Trichur, is a case in which the first accused is charged for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 420 read with Section 511, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the [Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 109, I. P. C; and the second accused, a retired Circle Inspector of Police, under Sections 120B, 420 read with Sections 109 and 119, I, P. C. and Sections 5(2) and 5(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The first accused had entered into a contract with the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, to...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kareem Vs. D.M.O., Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker167
Sadasivan, J.1. A question of jurisdiction arises in this review and as Khalid, J., thought the question has to be decided by a Division Bench this has come up before us on an order of reference passed by the learned Judge.2. Writ Appeal 75 of 1973 was decided by a Division Bench composing of Ragha-van C. J., and Khalid, J. Since then Ragha-van C. J., retired from service and the application for review was, therefore, presented before Khalid, J. The O. P. from which the Writ Appeal arose was one under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash certain orders passed by the District Medical Officer of Health and the Director of Health Services against the petitioner one P. K. Abdul Ka-reem, a hospital attender. The learned Single Judge dismissed the O. P. Against it the Writ Appeal was filed before a Division Bench and that was dismissed in limine. It is against the order of the Division Bench that the review has been filed. Under Order XLVII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code where one of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thankappan Achari Vs. Union Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker169
Sadasivan, J.1. Appellant, Than-kappan Achari, is a licensed gold dealer. On 9-10-1964 his residential house at Atingal Municipality was searched by the officers of the Central Divisional Office Trivandrum, on authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and recovered from his house 28 articles of gold weighing in all 4029.25 grams. The gold was seized in the presence of witnesses for investigation under Rule 126-L (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (for short the Rules). Necessary search mahazar was also prepared as required by the Rules. The gold so seized is above 14 carret in purity. In his statement to the Assistant Collector on 9-10-1964. the appellant admitted that about 2000 grams belonged to his family and the remaining were ornaments brought to his house from his shop at the time of the introduction of the Gold Control Rules. He also admitted that some of the ornaments seized were ornaments received by him from his customers for repairing and polishing...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Alias Varkey Vs. Narayanan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker154
ORDERV. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 501 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Cochin. The suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to make use of the plaint schedule property for purposes of construction of buildings for industrial and residential purposes of the plaintiff after separatelv demarcating ten cents of land immediately surrounding the kudikidappu of the defendants on which portion of the property the plaintiff does not want to put up any construction or interfere with whatever rights the defendants may have under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 fAct 1 of 1964). Pending the said suit the plaintiff moved the trial Court for the grant of a temporary in-junction restraining the defendants from instructing the plaintiff in demarcating the ten cents of land bv putting up fence separating the said portion from the rest Of the property and usin...
Tag this Judgment!A. Srinivasa Pai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1973
Reported in: [1975]36STC482(Ker)
K. Sadasivan, J.1. These tax revisions arise from the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Appeals Nos. 228/68, 1085/69 and 1149/69. The appellants in those appeals were M/s, A Srinivasa Pai, Merchants, Quilon, who were dealing in ration foodgrains, sugar, provisions, etc. The common question that arose in those appeals was whether the assessment of the estimated turnover of containers was unlawful. The question was decided against the assessee by the Sales Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal and, finally, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The packing materials involved in the appeals were gunny bags, tea-chests and F.A.C.T. manure bags. In respect of the first two, the Tribunal held that there was an implied agreement for the sale of the containers and, as such, the assessment of the estimated turnover of the containers was correct; but in respect of the last one, F.A.C.T. manure bags, the Tribunal held that the manure bags do not hav...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR87(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest on securities received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 49,086 is exempt from tax under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as arising from the order of the Tribunal in the matter of the assessee, the Malabar Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Calicut, in relation to the assessment year 1968-69, the corresponding previous year having ended on June 30, 1967. During that period the assessee earned Rs. 49,086 by way of interest on securities. This amount, it was contended by the assessee, should be exempted under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short, the Act. This contention had been rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee is a co-operative society carrying on banking business. The submission on behalf of counsel for the assessee is that the Banking Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Josna Bank Ltd., Represented by Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas558(Ker); [1974]97ITR72(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-company's claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 55,545, being the difference between the book value of the Government securities held by the assessee and the value at which they were taken over by Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., on the amalgamation of the assessee with the said bank has been rightly rejected by the Income-tax Officer '2. The assessee, the Josna Bank Ltd., was a banking company which carried on business till the 12th October, 1965. On account of financial difficulties, it was given the benefit of moratorium on and from June 12, 1965, by the Central Government on the recommendation made by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 45 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. A scheme of amalgamation of the assessee-bank with Lord Krishna Bank Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnamma Vs. Karthiyani Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker140
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question of court-fee payable on the appeal memorandum In an unnumbered second appeal from the decree passed by the District Court in A. S. No. 452 of 1969 has come up before us on an order of reference by a Division Bench to which the question had been referred by order dated 26th September 1973. The order of reference to the Division Bench was made because the correctness of the observations of Narayana Piliai. J., in the decision in Ammu Brahmaniamma v. Gopalan 1973 Ker L. T. 726 was doubted. That observation is extracted in the order of reference and runs as follows:--'But an appeal by a defendant in that suit stands on a different footing. If there is a decree against him. for future mesne profits as he has to avoid that decree he has to pay court-fee on the mesne profits from the date of suit up to the date of appeal.'2. The question that was considered by Narayana Pillai. J., was whether in a plaintiff's appeal from the decree dismissing a suit, court-...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Parmeswaran Pillay Vs. Sankaran Chandrasekharan Pillay and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker102
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. Thisis an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree dismissing their suit, described as a suit for redemption, on the ground that the same is barred by adverse possession. Two items were the subject-matter of the suit. In regard to item 2, it was conceded in the trial court (vide paragraph 8 of the judgment) that the plaintiffs had no right to redeem or recover possession. Despite this concession, in the appeal preferred against the dismissal of the suit, defendants 2 and 3who were interested only in item 2 were also impleaded. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs of defendants 2 and 3. Despite this, in this second appeal again, the legal representatives of defendants 2 and 3 also have been joined as respondents and relief has been broadly claimed in respect of both the items. We have no hesitation, at the outset itself to dismiss this second appeal with costs as against defendants 2 and 3 (now represented by their legal representatives). ...
Tag this Judgment!Maravakulath Alavi Vs. Palarakkat Kallingal Mohammedkutty Haji and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker100
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. Theplaintiff-revision petitioner filed O. S. 7 of 1972. Munsiffs Court, Tirur for an injunction against the respondent herein alleging that he was a tenant under the third respondent. An ex parte ad interim injunction was passed on 7-1-1972, The Munsiff thereafter held that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964) as a question of tenancy was in-volved in the suit. He stayed proceedings by order dated 31-10-1972 and referred the question of tenancy for determination to the Land Tribunal. Consequent on this order, by a further order dated14-11-1972 the Munsiff cancelled the order of interim injunction under Section 125 (7). Against this order vacating the interim injunction, the plaintiff-revision petitioner filed an appeal to the Sub-Court which was dismissed. It is against this order that this revision has been filed. 2. Counsel for the revision-petitioner relied upon our recent judgment in C. R. P. N...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›