Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker111
Koshi, C.J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by a Nayar widow and two among her three children to recover in their own right and in the right of defendant 7 to the action, the share which one Krishna Filial Hainan Pillai (hereinafter referred to as Baman Pillai), the husband of plaintiff 1 and the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendant 7, was entitled to out of his tarwad properties. In O. S. No. 1044 of 1114 on the file of the Kottayam District Munsiff's Court, a brother of the said Raman Pillai had instituted a suit for partition of the tarwad, properties and Baman Pillai, who war, defendant 2 therein, filed a written statement on the first hearing date (19-12-1114) itself claiming his due share (one-seventh) and for a division of the same when the tarwad properties were divided by metes and bounds.However, overlooking that fact and after declaring among other defendants Raman Pillai also ex parte the court passed a preliminary decree in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker129
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioners are Stockists or 'A' Class licensees under the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Travancore Tobacco Act, I of 1087, and published in theTravancore-Cochin Government Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated the 25th January 1951.2. Rule 14 of the Rules provides that 'the vend of tobacco of all kinds is prohibited throughout the State, except under a licence'; Rule 15 that the 'licence for the vend of tobacco shall be of the following descriptions :--'(i) Stockist or 'A' Class license, (ii) Wholesale or 'B' Class license and (iii) Retail or 'C' Class license'; and Rule 16 (1) and (11): (1) Holders of Stockist or 'A' Class licensees shall be entitled to purchase tobacco from any dealer within or without the State without any quantitative restriction. This class of licensees shall sell only to other 'A' Class licensees or to 'B' Class licensees. (ii) The annual fee for these licenses shall be as follows: -- Variety of tobaccosto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker368
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. This Second Appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit out of which it arises was brought by him in his right as Court auction-purchaser of Survey Plot 233/4 (Kormancherri Purayidom) in Vayalar West Pakuthy, to compel defendant 1, a Court auction-purchaser of certain buildings standing on it, to remove them. Kormancherri Purayidom as well as the buildings thereon belonged originally to a marumakkaihayam Ezhava family of which defendants 2 to 5 were members.Under a partition arrangement evidenced by Ext. E (27-6-1091) the said purayidom which formed the homestead of the family and the buildings with winch we are concerned here went to the share of the branch of defendants 2 to 5. oN the date of the partition, the plaintiff's father was the karnavan of the family. At the partition he took his share separately and bequeathed the same to his wife and children.Under Ext. E, the remaining members of the family, that is, members other than the plaintiff's father and defendants 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker290
Kaman Nayar, J. 1. These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution by the managements of certain private schools, recognised and aided by the State Government, are directed against an order of Government Order Ed. (G. Spl.) 1-20599/57/EHD dated 112th October, 1957, by which, in effect, grants earmarked for the salaries of the teachers employed in such schools which were theretofore being drawn and disbursed by the manager of the school concerned are to be drawn and disbursed by the headmaster. This order was to take effect from 1st October, 1957; in other words the new system would come into operation on 1st November when the salaries for October became payable. But the order notwithstanding, the managers of the schools with which we are now concerned prepared and submitted the bills for the salaries of the teachers of their schools for the month of October 1957 (as also for the arrears for some previous months) to the respective Assistant Educational Officers, (who are the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1958]9STC780(Ker)
Vaidialingam, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records pertaining to the assessment to sales tax of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent by his order dated 16th March, 1954, for the period from 1--1--1125 to 15--10--1125 and confirmed by the 1st and 2nd respondents and to quash those orders by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate directions and also to pass orders for refund of sales tax illegally levied and collected from the petitioner.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application it is stated that the firm of the Malabar Hides and Skins, Ernakulam, deals in hides and skins and it has been assessed to sales tax for the period 1--1--1125 to 15--10--1125 by the 3rd respondent herein who has fixed the turnover at Rs. 3,09,829-1-9 and has levied a tax of Rs. 4,841-1-0 as due from the firm. Though the demand is for the year 1125, actually the assessment has been made by the officer on 16th March, 1954, i.e., af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker311; 1959CriLJ1172
ORDERRaman Nayar, J. 1. These three petitions may be disposed of together since they raise the same question -- in fact two of them are from the same case.2. The petitioners are some of the accused persons in C. C. Nos. 1 and 2 on the file of Shri T. R. Balakrishna Iyer, one of the two special fudges appointed under Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 for the whole State of Kerala and specified under Section 7 (2) of the Act as the judge to try these cases. (Crl. R. P. No. 44 is by accused 1 and 2 and Crl. R. P. No. 65 by the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 1; and Crl. R. P. No. 45 is by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 2). 'Objection was taken to the trial on the score of want of territorial jurisdiction, but by two separate orders, dated 18-1-1958, the learned special judge overruled the objection and proceeded to frame charges under Section 251-A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek to set aside those orders and to quash the charges, the principal gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker12
M. S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in Election Petition No. 261 of 1957. His petition to set aside the election of the 1st respondent to the Kerala State Assembly from the Gannanore Assembly Constituency No. 1 was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Tellicherry, by its order dated the 16th September, 1957. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged by this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. There were three contesting candidates, the petitioner (Congress), the 1st respondent (Communist) and the 2nd respondent (Independent). The polling was on 5-3-1957, and the counting of votes, on the 9th and the 11th March 1957. The 1st respondent, secured 17,464 votes, the petitioner 17,413 votes and the 2nd respondent 9082 votes. The result of the election was declared on the 11th March 1957.3. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, details the grounds for declaring an election to be void. There are two sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1959]10STC459(Ker)
C.A. Vaidyalingam, J.1. O.P. 163 of 1953 and S.T.R. 1 of 1954 relate to the liability of the petitioners, Lipton & Company, Ltd., to be assessed to sales tax on certain transactions for the assessment year 1123 which is the same as the accounting period, being the year ended 15th August, 1948.2. O.P. 133 of 1955 is again by the same Lipton & Company Ltd., disputing their liability to be assessed to sales tax on some transactions for the assessment year 1952-53.3. As the questions arising in O.P. 133 of 1955 are slightly different from those arising in O.P. 163 of 1953 and S. T. R. 1 of 1954, we would consider O.P. 133 of 1955 after giving our decision in O. P. 163 of 1953 and the connected S. T. R. 1 of 1954.4. By order dated 6th August, 1952, the Municipal Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, the first respondent in O.P. 163 of 1953 re-assesSed the petitioners, Liptons Ltd., for year of assessment 1123. It is seen from the said order that a final assessment was made on 21st June, 1949, on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker149
Vahadahaja Iyengar, J 1. This revision raises the question as to whether the provision in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Indian Arbitration Act X of 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) is mandatory or merely directory, in character. In view to its importance it was referred by one of us before whom it came on in the first instance to a Division Bench. 2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent by agreement dated 19-5-1954, referred their differences in the matter of the settlement of their partnership accounts, to two arbitrators viz., respondents 2 and 3. The arbitration agreement did not, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act exclude the applicability of the First Schedule to the Act, paragraph 2 of which provided : '(2) If the reference is to an even number of arbitrators, the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire not later than one month from the latest date of their respective appointments'. However, respondents 2 and 3 did not appoint an umpire whether before they commen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker279; [1959]36ITR544(Ker)
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This is a reference made by the Madras Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act in compliance with the direction of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin State in the order in Original Petition No. 194 of 1955.2. The assesses, Helen Rubber Industries Limited is a company incorporated in the former State of Travancore and having its registered office at Kottayam. It had a factory for the manufacture of rubber goods at Kottayam (not at Kanjirappally as wrongly stated in the order of reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal). In the Malabar year 1116 the assessee-company (referred to hereinafter as the company) leased the aforesaid factory for a period of 15 years to certain persons (referred to hereinafter as lessees) by a registered instrument. Clauses 14 and 16 of the lease-deed provide for payment of demages in certain circumstances by the lessees to the company. They read:'14. The lessees further covenant and ...
Tag this Judgment!