Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker154
ORDER New Delhi, the 24th July, 1967. G. S. R. 1111. -- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation (Department of Food) No. G. S. R. 906, dated the 9th June, 1966 (as subsequently amended), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c). (d), (c), (f), (h), (i), (ii), and (i) of sub-section (2) thereof shall, in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable also by a State Government subject to the conditions- (1) that such powers shall be exercised by a State Government subject to such directions, if any, as may be issued by the Central Government in this behalf; (2) that before making an order relating to any matter specified in the said clauses (a), (c)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker183
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for recovery of the plaint building with arrears of rent at the rate of one rupee per month from October, 1962 on the basis of an oral entrustment of the building by the plaintiff to the defendant. The land along with the plaint building was sold in revenue auction evidenced by Ext. P4 on 11-7-1116 and it was delivered to the auction-purchaser on 11-10-1116 evidenced by Ext. P5. The auction-purchaser sold his rights to Ammukutty Amma in 1122 evidenced by Ext. P6 and she in turn executed Ext. P1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 27-9-1951.2. The main contention of the defendant is that the building was contructed by him and it was not sold in revenue auction. This contention was concurrently overruled by the courts below. But they disallowed the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the building because of the finding that the defendant is a kudikidappukaran. The plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker16
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The second appeal filed by the 4th defendant arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for redemption of Ext. A1 dated 2-2-1936 executed by the karanavan and the three senior anandiravans of the Valia Pathirikot tarwad in favour of the first defendant and for recovery of possession of the plaint properties. Ext. A2 is the marupat of the same date executed by the first defendant in favour of the executants of Ext. A-1. The plaintiff is the Court auction-purchaser of the rights of Valia Pathirikot tarwad under Ext. A-3, sale certificate in O. S. 513 of 1929 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Payyoli. The suit was instituted in 1953 when the Malabar Tenancy Act was in force. In view of the repeal of the said enactment it is not necessary to state the contentions of the parties based on the same. The suit was decreed by the trial court after overruling the contention of the defendants that Ext.A-1 is a kanom under Act 4 of 1961. Trial Court took the view t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1970]77ITR489(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The petitioner holds about 50 acres of land in his individual capacity, besides certain other properties as mutawalli of a wakf. These latter properties were endowed as wakf by the petitioner himself for the benefit of his wife and six minor children and their descendants from generation to generation, and on the total extinction of all the descendants, for the benefit of an orphanage in Tellicherry called Dharusalam Yathimkhana or, in its absence, for any other Muslim orphanage in Malabar. There was a provision that out of the income of the endowed properties, after meeting all expenses, a sum of one anna in the rupee was to be spent by the mutawalli--the petitioner himself--for the support of orphan boys and girls in Tellicherry. On these provisions, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal overruled the petitioner's contention that the income from the wakf properties had been set apart wholly for religious or charitable purposes and was exempt from taxa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker57
P. Narayana Pillai, J. 1. The 6th defendant in O. S. 474 of 1954 on the file of the Munsif. Alatur, is the appellant in S. A. 463 of 1966. The plaintiff in that suit is the petitioner in C. R P. 90 of 1968. He is also the plaintiff in another suit. O. S. 391 of 1951, on the file of the same court. C. R. P. 83 of 1968 is a revision petition filed by him from an order passed in O. S, 391 of 1951. The Second Appeal is from an order passed by the Munsif adjourning the case for confirmation of the sale which was held in execution. The Revision Petitions relate to orders passed by him in the 2 suits amending the decrees in those cases.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal and the revision petitions are as follows: The plaint schedule properties in the 2 suits are identical and they belong to the plaintiff. On the date of the 2 suits they were outstanding on lease with the Sub-tarwad of defendants 2 to 5 and 7. Defendants 3 to 5 and 7 are the children of the 2nd and 6th defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker241
Krishna Iyer, J. 1. The parties to these appeals invite the Court to evaluate life, which is priceless, by the negative device of assessing the loss inflicted by death on those who lived on the deceased's longevity. In this mundane world, even the irreparable can be repaired somewhat by money and the law computes compensation for loss of life as 'a hard matter of pounds, shillings and pence', based not on 'sentimental damage, bereavement or pain or suffering' but on 'a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit as of right or otherwise, from the continuance of the life'. 2. A stage carriage, belonging to the 1st defendant-company, was plying, with lethal rashness, on the Vypeen-Pallipuram road on the ill-starred day, the 12th December, 1959. This lovely island has but rugged roads and the working-class denizens, who make a livelihood by employment outside the island, depend largely on buses for their daily journeys. Three such workmen by name Ande Chouro, Joseph Sylvian and Pathrose R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker47
Narayana Pillai, J.1. The challenge in these petitions filed lender Article 226 of the Constitution by a public limited company, the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., and two of its directors, is to the validity of four assessment orders passed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), for short ' the Act', and relating to the years 1964-65, 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The orders in respect of the years 1964-65 and 1966-67 relate to reassessment and those in respect of the remaining years to the original assessment itself. The challenge made is on the basis that Section 2(18) read with Section 2(41) and Section 104 read with Section 108 of the Act and the provisions of the Finance Act, 1964 (5 of 1964), authorising levy of super-tax at a rate higher than 25 per cent, of the total income, the Finance Act, 1966 (13 of 1966), authorising levy of income-tax at a rate higher than 55 per cent., the Finance Acts, 19 of 1968 and 14 of 1969, authorising levy of income-tax at the rate of 65 per cent,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker273b; 1974CriLJ849
ORDERE.K. Moidu, J. 1. This Criminal Petition by one V. J. Thomas is directed against the order dated 23-8-1969 by the Sub-Magistrate, Chengannur, refusing to issue certified copies of (1) Police Refer Charge-sheet in Crime No. 94/68 of the Chengannur police station, and (2) the order passed thereon by the Sub-Magistrate on the basis of his copy application dated 7-8-69.2. The facts which led to the filing of this Revision petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner of a car M.S.W. 5585, which was driven by a driver employed by the petitioner. On 24-5-68 when the driver was taking out the car, there was an accident in which one Varkey Annamma sustained injuries as a result of the car dashing against her. On that account she lodged a first information in the police station. Chengannur, and the Sub-Inspector in-charge of the police station registered crime No. 94/68 against the driver of the car for his rash and negligent driving which resulted in injuries to the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker218; [1970]26STC45(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. These writpetitions have been placed before a Full Bench, as they raise certain important questions regarding the vires of Section 29 of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Rule 35 framed thereunder. The question has, in a way, been pronounced upon earlier, by a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Narayana Transports v. State of Kerala (1965) 16 STC 659 (Ker). But as correctness of that nil-ing was itself assailed, it was felt desirable that the matter be placed before a larger bench with greater freedom of action.2. O. P. No. 4977 of 1967 may be taken as representative of the facts relating to the other writ petitions. The petitioner herein is a firm of dealers in that part of Mahe, which was originally French territory, and now, part of the Union Territory of Pondi-cherry administered by the Government of India. It claims to have been engaged in sending goods to places outside the Pondi-cherry and Kerala States. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1970]77ITR719(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The question arising for decision in this case is whether Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has any application in computing capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset for a consideration lesser than its fair market value; in other words, whether the capital gains is to be computed on the basis of the actual consideration arising to the assessee or on the basis of the fair market value of the asset transferred. The facts, in so far as they are necessary for the decision of the above question, are not in dispute. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax. For the year 1966-67, his total income during the year ending on 31st December, 1965, was fixed at Rs. 97,890, and he was assessed accordingly. He had purchased an item of house property situate within the municipal town of Ernakulam in 1958, for a consideration of Rs. 16,500. On 25th December, 1965, he sold it for the same consideration in favour of a daughter-in-law and five of his children. O...
Tag this Judgment!