Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker182
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These nine Original Petitions arise out of nine separate assessments of the respective Petitioners for the financial year 1957-58 under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 22 of 1950 as amended by Act 8 of 1957. By virtue of the amendment, the principal Act had been extended on 6-8-1957 to the whole of Kerala including the former Malabar District but with effect from. 1-4-1957. The Income-tax Officers concerned required the various Petitioners to include in their returns their agricultural income derived from land situated in Malabar and received by them during their previous year, i.e. the year ending on 31-3-1957 or on any day anterior to it but within that year as the case may be.Now the former Malabar District was dis-integrated from the Madras State and became part of Kerala only as and from 1-11-1956. The income of the 'previous year' directed to be returned as above and sought to be made liable comprised therefore to major extent or in who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1959]37ITR311(Ker)
KUMARA PILLAI, J. - This is a reference made by the Madras Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.2. The respondent, the Calicut-Wynad Motor Service Limited, Kozhikode, a private limited company, was assessed to income-tax for the year 1947-48 (the accounting period being the year ended 31st March, 1947,) on an income of Rs. 1,28,182. The income-tax and super-tax assessed on this income came to Rs. 56,080 and there remained a balance of Rs. 72,102 out of the income after deduction of the income-tax and super-tax payable thereon which could be distributed as dividend among its shareholders. As the general meeting on June 22, 1947, the respondent declared the dividend payable out of the income earned during the accounting period ending 31st March, 1947, and the amount required for distribution of that dividend to all the shareholders was only Rs. 32,538. Even after the distribut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker139
Velu Pillai, J.1. The suit out of which these appeals have arisen, was instituted in the District Court at Anji-kaimal, to enforce a covenant for indemnity in a partition deed. Deceased Avira, who was the father of defendants 1 to 10 and the husband of the 15th defendant, and his brothers, the 13th defendant and the plaintiff, partitioned their properties in the year 1103 by deed Ext. C, by which a mortgage and puravaipa right over a property, which was subject to an encumbrance in Favour of a church, was allotted to the share of the plaintiff; Avira undertook by Ext. C to clear the encumbrance, and in the event of default, to indemnify the plaintiff, the properties allotted to him being also made answerable.The church obtained a decree Ext. I against the plaintiff, and another, and in execution purchased the mortgage and puravaipa right, and obtained delivery of possession under Ext, B on the 30th Dhanu 1116. The plaintiff has therefore sued to recover damages, to the extent of the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker263; 1960CriLJ1091
ORDERRaman Nayar, J.1. These three petitions which are by the same persons have been heard together since they involve the same question. The petitioner is the 1st accused in three cases, C. C. 758, 759 and 760 of 1958 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Mukundapuram,, in each of which he and 10 others have been charged by the police with offences under Sections 447 and 143 I. P. C. The petitioner undivided father holds certain lands on verumpattom, and the first informant in each of the cases claims to have been cultivating a piece of land on pankuvarom under, the petitioner's father. The accusation against the petitioner and his fellow accused in each case was that on 28-4-1958 they entered on the lands that were being cultivated by the first informants and proceeded to plough them. The first informants claimed that they were in possession of the lands, and from that springs the charge of criminal' trespass and of unlawful assembly for the purpose of criminal trespass.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker156
Velu Pillaj, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was for the recovery of damages for breach of contract, to supply 1,000 bags of cotton seeds, and was instituted ostensibly on behalf of a partnership, described in the cause title in the plaint, as 'M.A. Ahamed Rowther and Brother, by partner M.A. Noor Row ther'. The defendant was described as a firm, represented by two partners whose names were set out. The defendant contended inter alia, that the partnership being unregistered, the suit is not maintainable by reason of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The partnership aforesaid, originally consisted of M.A. Ahamed Rowther and his brother Noor Rowther. After the death of the former in the year 1937, his eldest son Mohamad Moideen Rowther, was admitted to the partnership in December 1940. The partnership was registered under certificate Ext. A 24 dated 8-12-1941. During the pendency of the suit, Noor Rowther died in the year 1953, and Abdul Rahiman Rowther, anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker75
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Kozhikode in O. S. No, 41 of 1948. The suit was for damages for the breach of a contract of affreightment and the return of the advance freight paid by the plaintiffs.2. The total claim was for a sum of Rs. 10,736-10-6. The lower Court said :'The suit is decreed with costs against defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the sum of Rs. 10,736-10-6 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. from the date of plaint and full costs of suit withinterest thereon at 6 per cent, from this date till realisation.'3. The 2nd defendant was the tindal of the country craft Itehrnania, the vessel concerned in this case. He had not chosen to appeal and the decree as far as he is concerned does not arise for consideration.4. In the plaint as originally filed there were only two defendants :'Tulsidas Mulji ,1011 of Mulji Vishram trading under the name and style of Vishram Khimjee'and Hasan Ayooh, the tindal m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker111
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 2-54959 and marked as Ex. P-1 in these proceedings. Though several points have been raised in this application, this original petition can be disposed of on a very short point, namely, as to whether the first respondent has got jurisdiction to entertain a revision at the instance of the second respondent to pass the order complained of.2. The petitioner applied on 3-5-1956 for a stage carriage permit for the route, Thiruvella-Periyar. As it was in inter-district route, the matter was referred by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, to the C. R. T. B. Trivendrum. After the necessary formalities, the application was transmitted to the R. T. B., Kottayam, for consideration and disposal.3. The application is stated to have been heard on 20-2-1959 in the presence of the petitioner, and also the other objectors and the R. T. B. sanctioned the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker127
1. This is an appeal by defendants 2, 11, 17, 19 to 24, 31, 35, 38, 46 and 104 in O.S. No. 65 of 1952 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The suit was for the recovery of possession of the items of property described in the schedule to the plaint on the strength of the plaintiff's title, of Rs. 1,200 as mesne profits for the three years immediately preceding the suit and of future mesne profits at the same rate, i.e., Us. 400 per year.2. The contentions of the plaintiff are summarised as follows in paragraph 2 of the judgment under appeal :'The plaint schedule properties belong in jenm to Kizhakkadath Kovilakam. These properties were in the possession of Pakaadavath Chandu on kanom Kuzhikanom right under the Kovilakam as per kanom document dated 5-5-1919. The rights of Chandu were acquired by the plaintiff by assignments dated 3-4-1943 and 23-12-1944 from the heirs of Chandu. The plaintiff obtained a renewal from Kizhakkadath Kovilakam as per document dated 27-4-1943....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker155; [1960]30CompCas272(Ker); 1960CriLJ597
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner who is the first accused in C. C. 927 of 1956 of the First Class Magistrate'sCourt, Vaikom, has preferred this revision petition seeking to have the charge framed against him quashed. The petitioner and other directors of the Bharat Ayurvedic Works Limited, Vaikom, are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act, VIII of 1913 for having published a false balance sheet of the company for the year ending 31st December, 1952. The case was taken up on the complaint of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies who has been authorised by the Government of India in this behalf. The petitioner's contention is that under Section 141A of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913), the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is not competent to prefer the complaint and that the only persons who can do so are theAdvocate-General or the Public Prosecutor, to whom the matter may he referred by the Government. The matter was taken i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1960)ILLJ777Ker
T.K. Joseph, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing an order, Ex. P. 5, passed by the respondent 1, the Inspector, under Section 3 and Rule 7 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act XLVII of 1958. The petitioner is the general secretary of the Tomco Employees' Union, Ernakulam, and four respondents are:(1) the assistant labour officer,(2) the manager, Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd.,(3) the secretary, Tata Oil Mills, Workers' Union, Ernakulam, and(4) the secretary, Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd., Staff Association, Ernakulam.2. The facts may be briefly stated: The petitioner is the general secretary of the Tomco Employees' Union, a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, A section of the workers in the Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd., at Ernakulam are members of this union. Under the standing orders of the company, copy of which has been ...
Tag this Judgment!