Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker208
Isaac, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revising an order which the First Class Magistrate. Varkala passed on 30-5-1966 on an application filed before him by the Enforcement Officer. Enforcement Directorate. Ministry of Finance. Government of India. Cochin, he is the sole respondent in this case. The application was not numbered; but it was made in Crime No. 83 of 1966 of the Varkala Police Station, which it had reported to the Court of the above Magistrate on 27-5-1966 2. The petitioner before us is one Krishnan Sukumaran, a resident of Varkala Village in Quilon District The records of the Magistrate's Court, which have been called for, disclose the following facts. At 4 A. M. on 27-5-1966, while the Sub-Inspector of Police. Varkala and party were returning to their station in two motor cars with a few accused persons arrested by them, the Sub-Inspector saw a person standing by the side of the public road near the Mission Hospital, with a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1968CriLJ936
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revising an order which the First Class Magistrate, Varkala passed on 30.5.1966 on an application filed before him by the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Cochin. He is the sole respondent in this ease. The application was not numbered; but it was made in Crime No. 83 of 1966 of the Varkala Police Station, which it had reported to the Court of the above Magistrate on 27.5.1966.2. The petitioner before us is one Krishnan Sukumaran, a resident of Varkala Village in Quilon District. The records of the Magistrate's Court, which have been called for, disclose the following facts. At 4 A.M. on 27.5.1966, while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Varkala and party were returning to their station in two motor cars with a few accused persons arrested by them, the Sub-Inspector saw a person standing by the side of the public road near the Mission Hospital, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker310
Raghavan, J.1. The appeal is by the defendants in a suit for return of price of cotton paid under a contract and also for reimbursement of moneys spent bv the respondent (a public limited company as warehouse charges, etc. The respondent entered into a contract with the appellants to purchase 356 bales of cotton of the Hubli Jaya-dhar variety to conform to sample T 3729 at a particular price F. O. R Cannanore. Eighty per cent of the invoice price was to be paid before taking delivery and the balance subsequently. Of the goods despatched, 106 bales were found to be Hubli Jayadhar of an inferior quality: and the rest (250 bales) were found to be of the Laxmi variety from Annagiri and Adoni. The respondent accepted the 106 bales, the Hubli Jayadhar, submitting the dispute regarding their quality for arbitration by the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., Bombay, since the contract contained an arbitration clause. The Association reduced the price slightly, since the quality of the said 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1969]72ITR664(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. This is an original petition filed under Article 226 oi the Constitution to issue a writ of prohibition against the respondent who is the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax (Special), Kozhikode, prohibiting him from taking further proceedings for assessing the petitioner as the manager of the Poomuli Mana in the status of a Hindu undivided family to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1961-62 pursuant to exhibit P-1 notice dated March 10, 1965, issued under Section 35 and exhibit P-3 notice issued under Section 17(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.2. The petitioner, Parameswaran Nambudiripad, is a member of Poomuli Mana consisting of a Nambudiri family in Kerala State and the members of the Mana were governed by the Madras Nambudiri Act, 1932 (Act 21 of 1933). Now they are governed by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 (Act 27 of 1958). The members of the family own considerable items of agricultural l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker295
Isaac, J.1. These two references arise out of an order passed by the Central Board of Revenue on 18-3-1910 in Estate Duty appeal No. KL 28, and they relate to the assessment of estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the property passing on the death of one Sri Parameswaran Pillai of Quilon, who died on 13-5-1956. The applicant in these references is one of the accountable persons. He delivered to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam, a statement of account of all the properties in respect of which the estate duty is payable, showing a total value of Rs. 2,04,861/-. After scrutiny of the statement, and giving the accountable persons due opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Assistant Controller determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 9,16,321/-, and the estate duty payable thereon at Rupees 1,33,560/-.2. The controversy before the Assistant Controller related only to the following matters:(i) The deceased Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker130
Govindan Nair, J.1. These writ applications were heard along with a batch of other writ applications where common questions have been raised. It is agreed that the decision in these cases will govern the other petitions as well.2. The petitioners in these writ applications are all 'operators' within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). They impugn the validity of the Act. The grounds on which the Act is challenged may be grouped under five heads; (a) the enactment though it purports to be under Item 56 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, really does not fall within the ambit of that entry; in fact it has trespassed on legislative powers vested with the Union Parliament and is a colourable piece of legislation and is incompetent; (b) the Act violates Part XIII of the Constitution, particularly Article 301 thereof, and does not satisfy the require...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker38
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 30 of 1968 is by the State against the judgment' dated February 8, 1968, of Gopalan Nambiyar, J., in O. P. No. 4134 of 1967, wherein the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966, and Clause 4 of the Kerala Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966, have been held violative of Constitutional provisions. The two Orders will be referred to here-inbelpw as 'the Levy Order' and 'the Declaration Order' adopting the short-names used by the learned Judge.2. The petitioners in the above-said O. P. (a mother and son) are admittedly cultivators of paddy in 30.49 acres of land -- according to the State they cultivate 34.91 acres -- who challenged the Levy Order which compels them to sell paddy to Government on a graduated scale according to acreage against payment of price not exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Government, and the Declaration Order under which they might be compelled to declare the paddy in their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1969CriLJ486
Isaac, J. 1. These two cases have come before us pursuant to an order of reference made by our learned brother Sadasivan, J. The question arising for decision relates to the validity of Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayats (Trial of Offences by Magistrates) Rules 1904, as it stood before its recent amendment as per Notification G.O.Ms. 440/67/DD dated 14-12-1967. 2. We shall briefly state the circumstances under which the above references have been made. Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for the recovery of arrear of tax, cess etc. due to a Panchayat; and prosecution of the defaulter before a Magistrate is one of the modes provided thereunder. Section 129 o the Act contains the rule-making power of the Government; and Section 129 (2), Clause (xxxix) reads as follows:- '129(2). In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoingpower, the Government may make rules--x x x x X (xxxix) as to the class of Magistrates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker196
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The assessee here is a limited company incorporated under the Travancore Companies Regulation and is carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar. It also runs a distillery and a tincture factory. The assessee-company was floated with a view to take over the business assets of a company called Travancore Sugars Ltd., which was being wound up and in which the State Government held the largest number of shares, the Government Distillery at Nagercoil and the business assets of the Government Tincture Factory at Triyandrum. An agreement was entered into between the Government of Travancore and Sir William Wright on behalf of Parry & Co. Ltd.. the promoters of the assessee-company. Under the agreement, the assets of all the three concerns were agreed to be sold by the Government of Travancore to the assessee-Company. It is not necessary to set out all the clauses in the agreement. Apart from the cash consideration for the transfer of the assets, Clause 7 of the agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1969]71ITR247(Ker)
By this writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to quash exhibit P-6 evidencing the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Ernakulam, in purported exercise of his powers under section 154(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amending an earlier order dated May 14, 1964, passed against the petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58 under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by rectifying a mistake stated to be apparent from the record.The petitioner is a private limited company whose business consists mainly of undertaking and executing works contracts. It was also running a cashewnut factory till October, 1956. For the assessment year 1957-58 it was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 99,125 as per the assessment order evidenced by exhibit P-1 dated December 31, 1957. Proceedings were thereafter initiated against the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam, under section 23A of the Indian Income...
Tag this Judgment!