Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1962)IILLJ301Ker
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. These appeals are by accused 1 and 2 against the judgment of the Special Judge, Trichur, convicting both the accused of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, the accused 1 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act, Section 477A, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 471 read with Section 467, Indian Penal Code, and the accused 2 for abetment of the offences under Sections 5(2), 477A and 471, Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fine. In Calendar Revision No. 2 of 1962 notice has been issued by this Court calling upon the, accused to show cause why the sentence awarded on them should not be enhanced.2. The prosecution case shortly stated is as follows:Sri G.V. Nair, the accused 1 in the case, is a public servant in the service of the Kerala Government. During the relevant period his s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker202
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The respective petitioners, in these writ petitions, challenge the orders of assessment passed by the concerned Sales-tax Officers, making them liable tor payment of sales-tax under the General Sales-tax Act, 1125, as the last purchaser of the commodity, in question, in the State. Their contention is that the imposition of a levy, in the circumstances, on the last purchase in the State, offends Article 301 of the Constitution and is not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution. There are no doubt certain other questions arising for decision in these writ petitions. But the common question that arises is regarding the attack on these assessments, based upon Articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution; and I have heard arguments only on that aspect at present.2. As Mr. K. V. Surianarayana lyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who are the same in both O. P. Nos. 3210/61 and 261/62 has advanced the leading arguments on this aspect, I will refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker286
Raman Nayar, J.1. The short question is whether the proposed acquisition of the electric supply undertaking of the appellant company by the respondent State Government in pursuance of its notice Ext. G, dated 20th November 1959, is authorised by Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Our learned brother, Vaidialingam, J., has held that it is and has dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ or order quashing the notice and forbidding the acquisition. Hence this appeal. I might add that the validity of the section is not questioned; only its application is.2. The statutory provisions that fall for consideration are Section 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as it stood before amendment by Act 32 of 1959, the unamended Act for short, and Section 6 of that Act after the amendment, the amended Act, as I shall call it.3. Section 7 of the unamended Act runs-thus :'7. Purchase of undertakings -- (i) Where a license has been gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1964]51ITR33(Ker)
In all these writ petitions, Mr. K. V. Surianarayana Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the same, challenges the orders passed by the 3rd Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, dated February 21, 1961, under section 35 (10) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.The short contention that has been raised before me by Mr. Surianarayana Iyer in all these matters is that the provisions contained in section 35 (10) were enacted as and by way of a temporary measure and that on the date when these orders, under attack, were passed by the concerned officer, section 35 (10) had ceased to be in force, and, therefore, there was no jurisdiction in the officer concerned either to initiate proceedings under section 35 (10) or to pass any orders under section 35 (10). Section 35 (10) being, according to the learned counsel, a temporary measure, the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, have no application.On the other hand, the contention of Mr. G. Rama Iyer, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker18
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J. Ranganatha Kamath, learned counsel, challenges the demand made by the third respondent herein under Ext. P-1, dated 23rd May 1961.2. The circumstances under which this demand has been made may be briefly indicated. The petitioner company is a manufacturing concern, manufacturing, according to them, stoneware Glazed articles like Pickle Jars and other varieties of glazed stoneware jars, in their factory at Chalakuty, Kerala State. The demand Ext. P-1 itself is one calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3669.94 towards excise duty in respect of stoneware jars stated to have been removed by the petitioner company without payment of excise duty from the factory from 1-3-1961 to 30-4-1961.3. The Finance Bill, No. 10 of 1961, was introduced in the Parliament on 28-2-1961. The Bill was to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 1961-62. Under Clause 11 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker127
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, Mr. T. N. Subramonia Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant,challenges the order of the Rent Court, Ext. P-1 as well as the order of the appellate authority, namely, Ext. P-2. 2. The petitioner, who is the tenant of the holding in question, filed an application before the Kent Court, Palghat at Chittoor, under Section 16of the Malabar Tenancy Act for fixation of fail rent. The Rent Court accepted in part the grievance of the petitioner and fixed the fair rent as mentioned in the order, Ext. P-1. 3. Not satisfied with the fixation of fair rent under Ext. P-1, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the appellate Authority, namely, the learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat, under Section 17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act asking for relief by way of further reduction of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Court. The petitioner's appeal was C. M. A. No. 47 of 1960. The contesting responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker198
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The common question in these C. R. Ps. is of the court-fee payable on applications under Section 9 (3) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, which may hereinafter be referred to as the Act. In Beepathumma v. Shambhatta, 1963 Ker LJ 260 one of us (Madhavan Nair, J.), has expressed that such court-fee must be as prescribed in Section 11 (3) of the Act; but in C. R. P. No. 910 of 1961 another of us (Raghavan, J.) felt that such applications are a species of applications under Section 9 (1) and might therefore require court-fee as prescribed in Section 9 (4) of the Act, and referred the matter for consideration by a Bench; and it has now been placed before this Full Bench by the learned Chief Justice.2. Several aspects not been considered in 1963 Ker LJ 260 have been brought to bear on the question and in their light we think that the position has to be reconsidered, 3. The first question is whether applications under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 are a sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker121
M.S. Menon, C.J. This is an appeal by the defendants in O. S. No. 112 of 1958 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin. They arc the legal representatives 01 one Vakkan who died prior to the institution of the suit on 24-6-1955. 2. The suit which has been decreed was for the recovery of the sales tax due from the said Vakkan under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the financial years 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49. The tax due in respect of those four years is Rs. 12,301-4-0, Rs. 18,503-5-0, Rs. 27,858-6-0 and Rs. 2,015-14-3 respectively. The total amounts to Rs. 60,678-13-3, and that is the amount that has been decreed by the trial court with future interest at sis per cent per annum. 3. The sales concerned took place in Fort Cochin. At that time Fort Cochin was in the Province of Madras, one of the Governor's Provinces under Section 46 of the Government of India Act, 1935, It became a part of the Part A States of Madras on26-1-1950 when the Constitution of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker8
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal has arisen in a suit for partition of a Nambudiri Illom ignoring certain alienations executed by its karnavan, the 1st defendant, in favour of defendants 6 to 156. At the time of the suit, the illom consisted of six members, namely, the 1st defendant, his wife the 2nd defendant, and their children the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5 in the order of seniority. In passing the preliminary decree for partition the Court below has found the oral lease claimed by the lath defendant not true and many of the impugned alienations unsupported by illom necessityor benefit, and set them aside. Among the alienations so set aside were:. Ext. B-33 dated March 28, 1950, in favour of the 13th defendant; Ext. 6-34 dated February, 28, 1950, Ext. B-36 dated October 14, 1946 and Ext. 6-36 D/- July 3, 1944, the interests whereunder have devolved on the 17th defendant; Ext. B-39 dated November 13, 1936, in favour of the 19th defendant; and Ext. B-75 da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker287
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this batch of 14 writ petitions, the pen-tinners, though different, who are all owners of forest lands in the area, commonly known as the Malabar area, attack the group of four Sections, namely, Sections 48 to 51, contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Forest Act, 1951, (Act IV of 1962), hereinafter to be referred to as the Kerala Act, as unconstitutional and as Infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 19(1) (f) and (g), and 31 of the Constitution. The State of Kerala is the main respondent in most of these writ petitions, though in some of them some of the officers of the Forest Department have also been included as additional respondents.2. Though the averments contained in all these writ petitions are slightly different, all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Gov-ernment Pleader appearing for the State, have agreed to treat the averments contained in O. P. No. 1108/62 as well...
Tag this Judgment!