Kerala Court December 1973 Judgments
Mathew Zacharish Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1198
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The matter has come on before us on a fairly detailed order of reference by Bhaskaran, J. Although the learned Judge refrained from expressing his final view, he stated more than once in the order of reference, that there is enough to cast doubts on the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Velu Viswanathan v. The State 1071 Ker LT 80 : 1971 Cri LJ 725 and that the question of law involved should be settled by a Division Bench, or a larger Bench, before which this petition may be placed by the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner is the President of the Kerala Non-Gazetted Officers' Union. On the night/morning of the 9th/10th November, 1975 at 3.30 A. M. the 2nd and 3rd respondents with a posse of constables are stated to have searched the patittioner's Vettik-kunnel House, Mannaread. in the petitioner's absence, and, according to his wife, asked her to direct the petitioner to contact either the 2nd or the 3rd respondent with a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.K. Aboobacker Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC345(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This writ petition has been referred by the Chief Justice for being heard by a Division Bench, after noticing that a previous unreported judgment of a learned Judge of this court (Isaac, J., in O.P. No. 3538 of 1969) has answered the question raised herein in favour of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a dealer in copra and oil-cakes in Tellicherry. For the year 1972-73 he was provisionally assessed to sales tax on a turnover of over Rs. 4,00,000 by exhibit P1 order dated 12th September, 1972, and a demand for tax of Rs. 60,587.00 was raised against him. He filed an appeal against exhibit P1 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. By exhibit P2 order dated 17th November, 1972, the appellate authority confirmed the provisional assessment in respect of turnover of Rs. 2,50,759.13 and deleted the assessment in respect of a turnover of Rs. 92,907.00 (copra) and Rs. 93,300.00 (oil and cake). The petitioner has averred in paragraph 8 of his petition...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Chellappan Vs. Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ532Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. We think this writ petition should succeed. The petitioner was a railway pointsman at Irimpanam. By Ext. P2 judgment of the Sub Magistrate, Palghat, he was found guilty under Section 51 of the Kerala Police Act for disorderly drunken behaviour. But the Magistrate released him under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after admonition. In the wake of this, by Ext. P1 proceedings of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, the petitioner was removed from service, on the ground that the conduct which led to his conviction was such as to render further retention in public service, undesirable. The said order was confirmed on appeal by the appellant authority (vide Ex. P3). This writ petition is to quash Exts. P1 and P3 orders. The impugned action was taken under Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, which reads:14. Special procedure in certain cases--Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 13--(i) wh...
Tag this Judgment!Michael A. Kallivayalil Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR202(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. At the instance of the assesses the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of Elangad estate by the assessee represented an adventure in the nature of trade resulting in a taxable profit of Rs. 1,70,175 ?'2. We may add that the assessee wanted the following question also to be referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the assessee that so long as the major portion of Yendayar estate remained unsold, the adventure, if any, was not concluded ?'3. The Tribunal observed that it was unnecessary to refer such a question separately as the question that was referred was comprehensive enough to cover the aspect 'sought to be highlighted'.4. The year of assessment is 1960-61. The facts which lead up to the sale ar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR646(Ker)
Sadasivan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, hasreferred the following question, viz. :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling the penalties leviedunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 '2. The assessee runs an aeronautical engineering college under the name 'Southern College of Engineering and Technology' at Chalakudy in Kerala State. She filed a return on January 15, 1964, declaring a loss of Rs. 19,819 for the assessment year 1963-64, a return on February 19, 1965, declaring a net loss of Rs. 28,004 for 1964-65 and a return on December 3, 1965, admitting an income of Rs. 345 under the head ' property ' and a loss of Rs. 9,896 under the head ' business ' for the assessment year 1965-66. She used to collect monies from students of the college ranging between Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 7,500 for arranging for their overseas training...
Tag this Judgment!Manni Vs. Moidu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker161
Sadasivan, J. 1. The petitioner claiming herself to be a kudikidappukaran applied under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 -- as amended by Act 35 of 1969 -- (shortly stated the Act), for the purchase of the kudikidappu occupied by her. The claim was opposed on the ground that the petitioner is holding the property under a marupat, and as such she is a tenant and not a kudikidappukaran entitled to apply under Section 80-B. The Courts below upheld this plea of the respondent-jenmi land have dismissed the petition. 2. The C. R. P, has come up before us on reference by a Division Bench stating that the two Single Bench decisions on this point, Karthiayani Pilla v. Appipennu Mathu, 1965 Ker LT 1212 and Chozhil Vasudevan v. Sreemathi Amma, 1966 Ker LT 594 are irreconcilable. In 1965 Ker LT 1212. Raman Nayar, J., as he then was held that: 'the lessee of a dwelling house can be a kudikidappukaran provided that the other conditions required by the definition are satisfied.' And ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kanthimathi Vs. S. Parameswara Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker124
George Vadakkel, J. 1. These appeals, one by the husband and the other by the wife, exemplify how domestic peace apd harmony is broken by the inability of a spouse to adjust himself or herself to the new environment created by the marital status. The evidence in the ease discloses the dormant anxiety of the wife to be in her rightful place with her husband, and the eagerness of the husband to be beside his wife. However, for the wife her in-laws come in between her and her husband and according to the husband he can not discard his aged parents. An embarrassing situation is the result, and both have approached the Courts, each one to vindicate his or her respective stand, --husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights and wife claiming maintenance. Both got the reliefs oraved for, and the defeated spouse in each of the proceedings has preferred these appeals. A. S-No. 496 of 1972 is by the wife and A. S. No, 313 of 1973 (A. S. No, 7(5 of 1973 of the Additional Sub-Court Trivandrum, w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›