Kerala Court March 1976 Judgments
K.A. Joseph Vs. Taluk Land Board, Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker52
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Section 85 (2) of the Ke-rala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (in short, the Act) obliges a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area to file a statement before the Land Board within a period of 3 months from the date notified under Section 83 of the Act intimating the location, extent and such other particulars as may be prescribed, of all the lands owned or held by such person and indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. The Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, in Rule 4 provides that the statement under subsection (2) of Section 85 of the Act shall be in form No. 1. This form has a series of Annexures and Annexure J concerns the particulars of land desired to be retained and particulars of land proposed to be surrendered. Explanation IV to subsection (2) of Section 85 reads:--'Explanation IV:-- Where any person owns or holds in excess of the ceiling area including lands mortgaged to the Government or to a co-operative society or...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Pillai Karunakaran Pillai Vs. Ouseph Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker27
Janaki Amma, J. 1. The appellant in this case is the judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 48 of 1971 of the Munsiff's Court, Shertallai. In execution of the above decree notice was issued to the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 37 to show cause why he should not be arrested and detained in prison for nonpayment of the decree debt. The appellant appeared befpre Court and filed objections, one of the objections being that he had no means to pay. However on a subsequent date to which the case stood posted, he paid Rs. 100. Some more amounts were also paid On the adjourned dates. The case stood posted to 28th September, 1972 for payment of the balance amount. No amount was paid on that day and therefore warrant was issued. 2. The appellant then filed a petition for permitting him to pay the decree debt in instalments. That petition was dis-missed. The order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal and second appeal in the meanwhile a fresh petition for execution was filed. It was taken up after the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Nelson Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker16
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The Writ petitioner purchased a Motor-car KLE 97 from one T. K. Surendran, Mat-tancherry, Cochin on 10-10-1969. While the vehicle was under the ownership of Shri Surendran it had been stopped and checked by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Quilon on 6-6-1969 at 4-35 P.M. at Chavara when it was found that it was conveying for hire without permit one Shri Kunji Bai and his family consisting of six persons. A charge memo dated 26-9-1970 was issued to the petitioner by the Registering Authority (Regional Transport Officer), Ernakulam--1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days why the registration certificate of the car should not be suspended under Section 33 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (here-inafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of unauthorised user of the vehi-cle for carrying passengers on hire without a permit. The petitioner acknowledg-ed the receipt of the charge memo on 2-11-1970 and he claims to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1976
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT650(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner, Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., Alupuram, Alwaye, paid excise duty in respect of certain items, which, it now claims, were non-dutiable items. The items in question were properzi rods. The First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which provided for the tariff in respect of excise duty, in so far as the same is material, originally stood as follows:-----------------------------------------------------------------------Item No. Description of Goods Rate of duty-----------------------------------------------------------------------27. ALUMINIUM-(a) any crude from including ingot, Three hundredbars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots and pellet. rupees permetric tonne.(b) Manufactures, the following, namely, Five hundredplates, sheets, circles, strips and extruded rupees pershapes and sections in any form or size. metric tonne.(b) Foils, that is a product of thickness Six hundred(excluding and backing) not exceeding 0.16 rupees permillimetre...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Chandradass Butt and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker30
Khalid, J. 1. A 'Division Bench of this Court consisting of Raghavan, C. J. and One of us disposed of by a common Judgment four appeals, A. S. Nos. 52 and 464 of 1969 and. 361 and 363 of 1970. These appeals arose out of three proceedings before the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, two Original Petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act and a suit for maintainance. One Original Petition was to declare the marriage be-tween the parties a nullity or in the alternative, if the marriage is found valid, for grafting a decree for judicial separation. The other Original Petition was for a decree for Judicial separation on the ground of desertion. The suit was for past and future maintenance, for return of streedhanam, ornaments and movables. The Original Petitions were dismissed by the trial Court, In the suit for maintenance, a decree was granted for past and future maintenance at the rate of Rupees 125 per mensem. The Other prayers in. the suit Were not granted. Aggrieved parties filed the above-men...
Tag this Judgment!South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Imperial Chit Funds (P.) Ltd. (In Liquidati ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas665(Ker)
Khalid, J.1. This is an application filed by the South Indian Bank Ltd., Trichur, seeking leave of this court to institute a suit against the respondent, viz., the Imperial Chit Funds (P.) Ltd., Ernakulam (in liquidation), and three others, for the recovery of the amount due to the applicant-bank as per the overdraft account of the Imperial Chit Funds (P.) Ltd., Ernakulam.2. The facts of the case are, in short, as follows : The applicant-bank is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Trichur. The Imperial Chit Funds (P.) Ltd., 1st respondent in the application, is also a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. This company is now under liquidation. This company was carrying on business of conducting kuries with head office at Ernakulam. This company had fixed deposits in certain branches of the applicant-bank. The details of the deposits are given in paragraph 4 of the application. The total amount of the deposits comes to Rs. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Beepathumma and ors. Vs. Mohamed Nakoor Meera Rowther and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker54
George Vadakkel, J. 1. That the plaintiff is entitled to 3/8 share >in the properties left by his consanguine brother, Muhammad Ghani Rawther, is not disputed before us. The dispute is as to whether Muhammad Ghani Rawther left behind him any properties in which the plaintiff could claim 3/8 share. According to the plaintiff the four documents, Exts. B-1, B-4, B-6 and B-7, could not operate on the properties of Muhammad Ghani Rawther for two reasons, namely, that those documents evidence gifts in violation of the Muslim Law and that those documents, if at all executed, have been executed by Muhammad Ghani Rawther at a time when he was not mentally competent to execute the same. The lower court accepted the plaintiffs case and passed a preliminary decree for partition and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have come up in appeal. The first defendant died while the suit was pending trial before the lower court.2. The first defendant is the widow of deceased Muhammad Ghani Rawther who died on 18th Dec...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)352
V. Khalid, J. - The main question that arises for consideration and falls for my decision in this case is, whether the Income-tax Officer is Court without the meaning of s. 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although this was the main question raised before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ernakulam, now an additional ground is urged, that the complaint does not disclose any mens rea. No mens rea can be atributed to A-1, a company. It is further submitted that there are no materials in the complaint specifying the individual acts done by the other accuse, nor is the group liability section invoked therein.3. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition can be briefly stated as follows :- The company filed before the Income-tax Officer, Bombay its returns of income for the assessment year 1967-68 in respect of the accounting year ended 31-3-1967. The return was filed on 31-12-1967. During the course of the assessment were produced before the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Complain...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Ahammed Kutty Haji and Bros. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: [1979]117ITR209(Ker)
Narendran, J.1. The petitioner in this original petition is an assessee under the Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950, for short the Act, within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, Agrl. ITO, Manantoddy. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts. P-10 to P-12 orders of the 1st respondent passed under Section 35 of the Act revising the assessments, Exts. P-3 to P-5. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: One K.T. Ahammed Kutty Haji and his three brothers jointly purchased certain agricultural properties in equal shares. The properties purchased were enjoyed and possessed by them as tenants-in-common. The income from the properties was shared equally among the four sharers who were commonly known as Messrs. Abdul Kader Haji & Bros. For the year 1960-61, they were assessed assigning the status of a company. On appeal, the Addl. AAC of Agrl. I.T. & S.T., Cannanore, by Ext. P-1 order dated August 18, 1961, set aside the assessment order holding that the status of the petitioner is one of t...
Tag this Judgment!Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto Vs. Government of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker58
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. In this Original Petition the petitioner challenges the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum, dated 5th June 1973 (Ext. P-2) refusing permission to the petitioner to admit girls in the St. Vincent's High School, Kaniyapuram. The order of the District Educational Officer, dated 2nd May 1974 (Ext. P-4) issued in consequence of Ext P-2 order is also challenged. In 1947 the Government accorded sanction to one Dr. A. G. Pereira to open a High School under his management at Kaniyapuram. Subsequently the school was transferred to the Trivandrum Roman Catholic diocese and it is administered by this diocese during the last 25 years. The petitioner is the corporate Manager of the schools belonged to the Roman Catholic diocese of Trivandrum. Only boy students were admitted in school concerned in this case till the end of the academic year 1971-72. In the next academic year the management built a separate building in the school compound to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »