Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker69; [1961]12STC722(Ker)
Ansari, C.J. 1. The revision petitioner is a registered firm dealing in timber, and had been assessed by the Sales-Tax Officer, Kozhikode, on price of sleepers sold to the railways. The petitioners had entered into the contract to supply on November 23, 1956 and supplied goods worth Rs. 1,34,115-15-1; which amount was asked to be exempted, due to the sleepers having been delivered outside the State, and the sales being thus inter-State. The Sales Tax Officer held that since the contract was concludedat Kozhikode and rail delivery was effected at Kallayi yard within the State, the sales were intra-State and the turnover taxable. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had also declined to exempt the amount, and the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal relying on its previous decision in Tribunal Appeal No. 168/57. The ground is that the sale under the contract 'had become complete at Kallai, within the State of Kerala, where the sleepers were loaded into wagons. Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker81
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. In Sessions Case No. 26/59 the accused who was charged for offences under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 511 of the Indian-Penal Code was found guilty but convicted under Section 456, I. P. C., by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Tellicherry. In appeal to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge quashed the conviction and acquitted the accused. On a perusal of the calendar, notice was issued by this court to the accused to show cause why the acquittal should not be set aside.2. The facts material for the determination of the question raised in this case may be briefly stated:On the night of 15-5-1959 while Pw. 1 was sleeping on the verandah of his house he heard cries from inside the room where his wife was sleeping that a thief has entered the house. He woke up and found a person getting out of the door and running. He gave chase calling out 'thief, thief and at a place about 150 yards from his house the accused was apprehended. Pw. 3 and some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker298
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The respective petitioners in these two petitions, challenge the validity of Section 12 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, --Act XIV/1950 as well as a notification dated 28th April 1953 issued by the T. C. State Government directing the levy of tolls on vehicles using the bridge across the Meenachil river at Palai on the Ponkunnam-Lalam road.2. The petitioner in 0. P. 404/60, represented by the learned counsel Sri. P. Govindan Hair, states that the petitioner is engaged in the business of transport service and is an operator of stage carriage services, and inparticular, it is operating a stage carriage KLR 310 on the route from Palai to Vandanmada in the Kottayam District. The petitioner further avers that the said bus has to pass over the bridge at Palai, constructed on the Meenachil river, by the State Government. At the northernend of the bridge, a toll gate has been established by the State Government and it is leasing out annually the rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1961]12STC807(Ker)
P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raises the question whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which was one for a declaration that the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, assessing the appellant to sales tax is illegal, ultra vires and made without jurisdiction and for a perpetual injunction restraining the State from enforcing the said order of assessment.2. One of the defences raised by the State was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Munsiff relying on Section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act (Act IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge of Kozhikode also held that if the initiation of the proceedings in the case was before the enactment of Section 18-A of the Act, the suit would be maintainable, but if the initiation of proceedings was subsequent to the enactment of Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker190
M.S. Menon, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred for decision by the Division Bench hearing the Election Appeal relates to the finality of the electoral roll before an Election Tribunal. The question in -the words of the order of reference -- is whether in the-case of a person whose name appears in the electoral roll and who has exercised his vote, the Election Tribunal can go into the question whether or not who had attained the age of twenty-one on the qualifying date, and, on the finding Shat he had not. exclude his vote from the count, or whether under the scheme underlying the relevant provisions of the Constitution, of the Representation of the People Act, J.950, and of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the ques-tion of age is to be finally decided at the regis-tration so that capacity or incapacity on that account is conclusively determined by inclusion in or exclusion from the roll.2. The answer to the question depends essentially on the true scope and meaning of Article 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker220; (1962)IILLJ169Ker
ORDERG.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, relates to the construction to be placed On the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The management, who is the petitioner herein, charge sheeted the second respondent, for certain acts of misconduct stated to have been committed by him. According to the management, a due and proper inquiry was conducted and it was satisfied that the worker is guilty of misconduct under the Standing Orders of the Company. Accordingly, the petitioner dismissed) the second respondent, by its order dated 6th, August 1959, the dismissal to take effect from 3-6-1959. The petitioner offered one month's wages to the second respondent who has declined to accept the same.3. As, an industrial dispute, I. D. 60/59 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal Kozhikode, the petitioner applied to the Industrial Tribunal, by M. P. 303/59 for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker214
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 67 of 1958 of the Munsiff's Court of Cochin, the Asiatic Government Security Fire and General Assurance Company Limited, is the appellants in this second appeal. It was the respondent in A. S. No. 131 of 1959 of the Sub-Court of Cochin, the successful appeal filed by the respondent before us, the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited.2. The Travancore-Cochin Prawn Curers' Co-operative Marketing Society Limited shipped a consignment of five hundred bags of prawns from Cochin to Rangoon by S. S. Jalatapi, a vessel belonging to the respondent. The goods shipped were insured with the appellant against the risk, among other things, of damage caused by 'Rain &/or Fresh &/or Sea &/or River Water' (Ext. P-1).3. Twenty-eight bags out of the shipment o five hundred bags were damaged by contact with fresh water and the appellant settled the claim in respect of the said damage by the payment of a sum of Rs. 3282/-. The suit is to recover that sum from the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker164
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal raises a question, of some nicety, viz., whether an alienation of tarwad property, not in conformity with the conditions laid in Section 21, of the Travancore Ezhava Act (III of 1100) is void or voidable.2. The facts are as follows ; The suit property belonged to Valiyaveettil tarwad of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 25, governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act lit was mortgaged with possession to the predecessor of the 1st defendant on 26-10-1083, and subsequently sold to the 1st defendant on 4-12-1113 M.E. The latter alienation was by the then karanavan and some of the other members of the tarwad, but had not 'the written consent of all the major members of the tarwad' as required by Section 21 of the Travancore Ezhava Act. Treating it as void, the plaintiff, on behalf of the tarwad, has instituted this suit to set aside the sale and to redeem the mortgage abovesaid.The 1st defendant contended inter alia that the suit, having been instituted more than 12 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker79
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for a declaration that an assignment executed by him in favour of the 1st defendant, who is none other than his own younger brother, was sham and did not come to effect. 2. The plaintiff was holding the suit property as 3 lessee. In October 1942, the landlord served on him Ext, A 7 notice to quit, to which he sent the reply Ext, A8 ue-nyrng the landlord's right to resume the land under the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Apprehending that the landlord might institute a suit for his eviction, the plaintiff, on February 9, 1943, executed Ext. Al as signment of his tenancy in the name of the 1st defendant, who was then in the Army, The assignment was designeo to secure the benefit of the Indian Soldiers' Litigation Act, to delay any attempt by the landlord to resuma the land through a court of law. As apprehended the landlord did sue for the plaintiff's eviction, in 0. S. No. 345 of 1943 on the file of the Muns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker18
Velu Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the order of the Election Tribunal, Quilon, by which it dismissed the appellant's election petition, for declaring him to have been duly elected to the State Assembly from Chadayamangalam Constituency on holding the election for the first respondent or the respondent for short, the returned candidate, to be void. The electoral roll was compiled under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 andthe Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1956, which may be referred to hereatter as the 1950 Act and tha Rules respectively, the qualifying date being January 1, 1959. The election and the trial of the election petition were held under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended in the year 1958, which may be referred to as the Act. The respondent was declared elected by a majority of 122 votes, having secure...
Tag this Judgment!