Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker210
Ansari, C.J. 1. The constitutionality of the Kanam Tenancy Act, No. XXIV of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been challenged in these ten writ petitions. Three landlords or 'jenmies' are the petitioners in O. P. Nos. 339/56, 106/57 and 206/58, and claim part of the Act to be violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31. The remaining seven petitions are by the holders of kanam tenures, who dispute the Cochin Devaswom Board's right to auction their properties due to their failure to pay rent in kind, whose money value had yet to be determined in exercise of the powers under the Act.The Devaswom Board, in the replies, not only adopt the plea of the Act not being constitutional due to the landlords' fundamental rights having been infringed; but further claim the Act not having repealed the earlier enactments, under which holders of kanam tenures in the Devaswom lands, were subject to special powers, that authorised auctioning of the tenants' proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker267
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the vires of Section 49-A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 are challenged. Section 49-A which was added to the original Act by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Ac; 1959 -- Act 33/1959 is as follows:'Section 49-A: No person other than a banking company, the Reserve Bank, the State Bank of India, or any other banking institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf. shall accept from the public deposits of money withdrawable by cheque;Provided that nothing contained in the section shall apply to any Savings Bank scheme run by the Government.'2. The petitioner in O. P. 1371/59 claims to be an individual, doing banking business, by receiving deposits from the public for the Purpose of lending to others and that the deposit is repayable by cheque or otherwise. The petitioner therein claims to have been doing this business from 1952.3. The petitioner further alleges_ that b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker268; [1961]31CompCas154(Ker)
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. By this application brought under Section 38(3)(b)(iii) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank of India seeks the winding up of a hanking company called the Palai Central Bank Ltd. The application is opposed by the company and by sixty-six creditors, some of them contributories, the debts due to whom, it is said, amount to about Rs. 70 lakhs out of a total outside liability of about Rs. 860 lakhs. Five creditors to whom, according to their claims about Rs. 2 lakhs is due, have appeared to support, or seemingly to support, the application.2. The company and some of its cerditors have applied under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 for considering schemes of reconstruction and the company has also applied for a stay of the present proceedings pending disposal of these applications. In view of Section 44B of the Banking Companies Act, I have had the schemes examined by the Reserve Bank (in a rather summary way it is true) and it not appearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1962]44ITR816(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - These references are under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and raise common questions of law. The relevant facts for deciding the questions in both are that the English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. had, by contract of employment, provided that the society would make certain contributions in order to provide pensionary, or deferred annuity benefits to the societys employees, and the terms of such benefits were incorporated in a trust deed of July 27, 1934. Certain rules were also framed for the due and proper administration of the trust, whose copy has been made annexure 'B' to the cases. Under the aforesaid arrangement the society had to pay every month 1/3 of the premium payable by each employee, who paid the remaining 2/3 for effecting a policy of insurance, and these together constituted 15% of the employees salary. The annuity thus got became due on the employees retirement, or on completion of the age of 55, and would not under cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1962]44ITR828(Ker)
M.S. MENON J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether 60% of the income of the assessee applied to the development of Arya Vaidyasala and the conduct of the hospital and school aforesaid is not exempt under section 4(3)(i) having regard to clause (b) of the proviso to that sub-section ?'Section 4 deals with the application of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof directs that any income, profits or gains falling within the classes specified therein shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them. The class of income specified in clause (i) of sub-section (3) is :'... any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, in so far as such income is applied or accumulated for application to such religious or charitable purposes as relate to anything done within the taxable terr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker242
Ansari, C.J.1. This appeal is against the decision by the Election Tribunal, Quilon, in Election Petition No. 11 of 1960. Four persons had contested the double member constituency of Mavelikara in theelections to the State Legislature held on February 1, 1960. Two out of the four contestants were on behalf of the Communist Party, and the remaining for the United Front. The result showed each contestant to have secured the following number of votes :1. Gopala Kurup..... 54,3402. Kujanchan..... 84,0423. Chellappan Pillai..... 50,6624. Ramachandra Das..... 50,1702. As the first two, who had contested for the Communist Party, had obtained the majority of the votes, both were declared elected. But on March 12, 1960, one Samuel Arulappan Paul filed the petition in which this appeal arises, seeking declaration of the aforesaid elections being void, and praying the two contestants on behalf of the United Front to be declared elected. One of the grounds taken in the petition for the aforesaid d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker21
Ansari, C.J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the decree, dismissing his claim to recover money from four persons. The appellant had on November 28, 1948, entered into an agreement with the father and his three SOILS, whereby the licence for the Foreign Liquor Tavern, Ernakulam which was held by the appellant, was agreed to be transferred in favour of the 2nd defendant in the case, who is one of three sons. The parties further agreed that the aforesaid four persons were to conduct the tavern from the date of the agreement, and in consideration pay Rs. 11,655-13-2 in daily instalments. There were also promises for payment by them of the kist to the Government and the rent of the building, in which the tavern was housed. As the agreement is important, we would extract below its relevant parts.' X XX XX (1) The Foreign Liquor Tavern, Ernakulam, auctioned for the year 1124, by Mr, Krishna Menon, for Rs. 9100/-, and situated in Mr. Kopramban's buildings, Jews Street, Ernakulam, is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker185
Ansari, C. J.1. This batch of six petitions challenges the writ petitioners' being assessed to the professional tax under the Proviso to Rule 18(2) of the Taxa-tion and Finance Rules . These had been framed under the Travancore District Municipalities Act, No. XXIII of 1116, hereafter referred to as the Act, whose Section 91 authorises the profession tax being levied, if the Council by a resolution determine such a tax being levied. The Section further enacts among other things that every company, which, after the date specified in the notification published under Section 79, transacts business within the Municipality governed by the Act, for not less than sixty days in 'the aggregate in any half-year, should pay a half-yearly tax assessed in accordance with the Rules in Schedule II. Such schedule comprises among other things Rules 16 and 18, which alone are relevant for purposes of deciding these writ petitions. Rule 16 gives slabs of half-yearly income for purposes of assessment to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ363Ker
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court refusing to quash the order of the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, in an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for approval of the appellant's action in dismissing from service an employee of theirs, F.M. Fernandez, respondent 2 in this appeal.2. Respondent 2 was a workman employed in the Munnar workshop of the appellant-company. He was charge sheeted under standing order 22 (ft) of the standing orders for the workmen in the company. The charge against him was that on 17 September 1959 at about 9-30 a.m. while on duty in the workshop he in conjunction with one Arogyaswami and Christy Jeyaraj quarrelled with motor mechanic M.C. Mathew and abused him in filthy language because of his having resigned his membership from the K.D.H.P. Company Engineering Employees' Union.3. Respondent 2 denied the charges levelled against...
Tag this Judgment!