Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker195
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The petitioner in these writ petitions is a Firm of dealers in Tobacco. By orders of adjudication dated 31-3-1903, the Assistant Collector of Customs. (2nd respondent) demanded the payment of duly from the petitioner under Rule 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944. A copy of the said order of adjudication has been filed in these O Ps as Ext P-1. The petitioner preferred appeals against these orders to the 1st respondent (The Collector of Customs). The 1st respondent sent a communication to the peti-tioner dated 9-3-1964, a copy of which has been produced as Ex. P-3 in these O. Ps. and which, for the sake of convenience is set forth below.'GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE) OFFICE OF THE COLECTOR 0F CUSTOMSAND CENTRAL EXCISE (CENTRAL EXCISEWING) Calvetti Road. Post Box No. 13, Cochin-1 A No 63/53. C No Va/2/34/63 Cr. Appeal dated 9th Jan 1964 To Shri A. S. Bava, Tobacco Merchant, Mallan cherry, Cochin-2 (By R P A D.) Sir, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker77; [1966]60ITR737(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwad and the petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959 was the karnavan of a Namboodiri Illom, and they seek to quash the assessments of their families under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In doing so, they have challenged inter alia the constitutionality of the Act, as having; been passed by Parliament without the requisite legislative power under Entry 86 of List I of the seventh schedule and in particular, the validity of the charging Section, Section. 3, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The former contention was repelled and the latter was accepted, by the judgment delivered by a division bench of this Court on the 21st July, 1961. On appeals preferred against that judgment by the Revenue, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded these and the-other petitions which were all heard together. Of the two contentions formulated above, the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker199
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant The fads relevant for the purpose of this appeal are mentioned below. Two hales of cotton piece-goods were consigned on 4-10-1951 by the appellant from the Railway Station. Cannanore, on the Southern Railway to Howrah on the Eastern Railway Since the consignee did not take delivery of the goods at Howrah, the consignot wrote Ext. A-9 dated 21-4-1952 to the Station authorities at Howrah for sending back the goods to him at Cannanore at his risk. The appellant was informed by Ext. A-12 dated 5-5-1952, that the goods were sold in auction by the Railway authorities on 13-3-1952 presumably under Section 55 of the Indian Railways Act. 1890 The suit was therefore filed by the appellant in compel the first respondent the Union of India to return the goods and if it is found that the goods were sold, for the recovery of the invoice value of the goods The two main contentions raised by the respondent are that the suit is not maintainable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker204; [1967(14)FLR258]
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner -- The Cochin Commercial Employees Association is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. The petitioner claims that an overwhelming majority of the monthly paid workman employed at the Cochin Office of the Fourth respondent, Messrs Pierce Leslie & Co. Limited, are members of the Association, and that for a long tome the petitioner was representing the monthly paid employees of the Company at their Cochin Office including Willing-don Island for the purpose of collective bargaining The petitioner stales that there was a settlement, between the fourth respondent and the monthly paid workmen of the Cochin office represented by the petitioner, of certain disputes in the year 1961 and that as soon as the period of the settlement was over, a notice WHS served upon the fourth respondent by the petitioner intimating the intention to terminate the settlement, and that thereafter the petitioner had served a charter of demands upon the fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker192
Velu Pillai, J.1. In view of the question arising for decision, it is not necessary to relate all the facts of this ancient litigation. The appeal arises in execution of a decree which was obtained by the appellant, mortgagee of certain properties, on the basis of a lease back to the mortgagor, for recovery of possession with arrears of rent and future rent. The decree was passed on the 10th March, 1928 under the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. The question which arises for decision is whether the appellant can recover future interest, that is interest subsequent to the date of the decree, without any limit as under Section 34(1) of the Indian Civil Procedure Code or only subject to the limit imposed by Section 31(8) of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. Section 81(1), (2) and (3) of the latter may be usefully quoted and are as follows:(1) In suits for money, no Court shall, in respect of the period antecedent to the insti-tution of the suit, allow in its decree a higher rate of int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker286
Raman Nayar, J. 1. This appeal is by a plaintiff whose suit for possession, mesne profits, and compensation for waste has been dismissed as against the 1st and 2nd defendants and 75.76 acres out of the 131.23 acres of land in suit (the court below has found that the actual extent of the suit land is only 118.85 acres but the difference in area is of no consequence) and has been decreed only as against the remaining defendants, defendants 3 to 6, and the rest or the land. The plaintiff seeks a decree against the 1st defendant and the rest of the land as well -- the 2nd defendant is only a servant of the 1st defendant Society and has no independent title or possession.2. The suit land is the plot marked L(i) in the plan Ext. L (prepared by the commissioners in some other proceeding. C.M.A. No. 206 of 1110 of the High Court of Travaucore, and proved by one of them who was examined as Pw. 10 in this suit); L(i)(a) is the land in respect of which the suit has been decreed; and L(i)(b) is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker143; 1966CriLJ659; [1966]17STC543(Ker)
Anna Chandy, J.1. The two petitioners in those revision petitions are K. P. Kannan a grocerv dealer in Quilandy and his son M P. Balan They were convicted in two cases C C. 355 of 1962 and C. C 3 of 1962 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate. Quilandy. The two cases arose out of the same incident.2. The facts so far as they are necessary tor the purposes of this case may be stated thus: P. W 1 the Intelligence Officer of the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozln kode accompanied by two of his Inspectors went to inspect the first accused's shop on the evening of 5-10-1961. They entered the shop and introduced themselves as Sales Tax Officers visiting the shop for the purpose of inspecting the account hooks. The first accused produced some account books which were inspected by P W 1. In the course of the inspection P. W. 1 noticed some note-books and slips in an open rack and asked him to hand them over for inspection. The first accused placed them on the table. P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker216
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to me under Section 23 of the Travan-core-Cochin High Court Act, 1125, as the learned Judges. Velu Pillai and Mathew, JJ., who originally heard the petition differed in their conclusions as to the jurisdiction of the Union of India to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on some of the charges. 2. A few fads may now be stated - The petitioner, Shri S. Govinda Menon, is a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was the First Member of the Board of Re-venue. Kerala State and was also holding the post of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. On the basis of certain petitions containing allegations of misconduct against the petitioner in the discharge of his duties as Commissioner, the Kerala Government, after conducting certain preliminary inquiries, started disciplinary proceedings against him, keeping him under suspension under R. 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker103; (1966)IILLJ632Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction for vending toddy from toddy Shop No. 12 of Pullikada, Quilon for the three successing years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The period for which the petitioner purchased the right to vend toddy at the last of these occasions or the petitioner's licence, as it is called expired on 1-4-1963; and at the auction for the year 1963-64 the petitioner was not the successful bidder. Respondents 2 to 9 were toddy tappers employed for the purpose of collecting toddy from the trees comprised in the petitioner's auction, and were getting wages at 18 nPs. per bottle of toddy. They filed claim petitions 783 to 789 and 793 of 1963 before the Labour Court Quilon, claiming retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay, on the ground that they had been in continuous service for three years under the petitioner, and had been retrenched from service. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the claim petition No. 783 of 1963; Ext. P-2 is a copy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1967]37CompCas117(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 518(1)(b) of the Companies Act brought by the liquidator in a members voluntary winding-up. What it seeks is a stay of the proceedings taken by the 1st respondent Rubber Board (the contesting respondent and hereinafter referred to as merely the respondent) under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the realisation of Rs. 6,57,367.60 due from the company by way of cess levied under Section 12 of the Rubber Act.2. The facts set out in paragraphs 6 to 11 of the affidavit filed in support of this application are not controverted ; nor is it the case of the respondent that the declaration of solvency made by the directors of the company (a copy of which has been marked as exhibit P-1) is in any respect false. That being so, I think I ought to grant the stay if I have the power to do so. For, from the circumstances disclosed I am satisfied that, if the respondent is to bring the properties of the company to sale at t...
Tag this Judgment!