Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.056 seconds)

Dec 21 1956 (HC)

Thailambal Ammal Vs. Kesavan Nair

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-21-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker86

varadaraja iyengar, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of their reversionary title as against the limited estate holder and her alienees, which has been dismissed by the court below.2. the disputed properties belonged originally to the joint family of two brahmin brothers chidambara iyer and ramaswami iyer. ramaswami iyer died in 1056 leaving his wife parvathi ammal deceased and a daughter kavery ammal who is the 2nd defendant in the case. parvathi came into possession of the properties in 1056 after the death of her husband ramaswami and continued in possession until her death in 1100, when she was succeeded by the 2nd defendant kaveri.soon thereafter, one of the sons of chidambara filed suit o. s. 342 of 1100 before the district munsiff's court of chittur against her as 2nd defendant and her lessee as the 1st defendant for recovery of the properties on foot of alleged title under a partition arrangement of 1087 entered into between the sons of chidambara after his death in that same year.that partition scheme assumed that parvathi was let into possession by chidambara under maintenance arrangement enuring for her life and the properties were accordingly recoverable after her death by the members of chidambara's branch. the 2nd defendant denied the maintenance arrangement and set up a case of her mother's succession to her father to whom she alleged, the properties were allotted in partition in the family. she accounted for her possession, as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1956 (HC)

Abdul Rahiman Sait Vs. Income-tax Officer, Alleppey.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-27-1956

Reported in : [1958]33ITR106(Ker)

varadaraja iyengar, j. - this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution field by an assessee under the income-tax act and calling in question a rectification order passed by the respondent, income-tax officer, alleppy.2. the petitioner was assessed for the year 1123 under the travancore act on 30th july, 1952, by the income-tax officer, by accepting the book version of the profits in the alleppey and trivandrum branches and adding a sum of rs. 7,000 in respect of the kottayam branch. a sum of rs. 21,134 which was claimed as speculation loss in oil and pepper was also disallowed. after an unsuccessful appeal as regards the disallowance of the loss, before the appellate assistant commissioner, the petitioner took the matter before the commissioner under section 46(2) of the travancore act. the commissioner, by his order dated 18th august, 1951, found that the set-off of the loss required re-investigation and so he set aside the assessment and remitted the matter with a direction to the income-tax officer 'to make a fresh assessment.'3. purporting to carry out the commissioners directions, as to re-assessment, the income-tax officer reopened the book version of the alleppey and trivandrum branches and added his estimate of rs. 30,000 and rs. 7,500 thereto respectively. as regards the kottayam branch he enhanced his original addition of rs. 7,000 to rs. 7,132. he also disallowed rs. 21,134 claimed towards speculation loss. this order was confirmed in appeal before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1956 (HC)

indo-mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, Quilon Municipality

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-22-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker58; [1956]29ITR619(Ker)

ordervaradaraja iyengar, j.1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution. the petitioner is the indo-mercantile bank ltd. having its registered office at mattanchery, cochin, and carrying on banking business at various places including quilon. the question sought to be raised is about the validity of the assessment to profession tax under the district municipalities act of 1116 (travancore), by the quilon municipality, over the income of the quilon branch of the bank for the two half years comprised in the year 1953-54. the commissioner of the quilon municipality who is impleaded as the 1st respondent to the petition did not accept the income as returned, but proceeded to assess it at rs, 25,665 for each of the half years, after disallowing the deduction claimed, of interest on amounts borrowed from the head office for purpose of the working capital of the branch, and, imposed a tax of rs. 644/-. the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, quilon municipal council, had also been, rejected.the petitioner claims that in computing the income of the branch for purpose of assessment to the tax, the interest payable on amounts borrowed as here, must necessarily be deducted, and the assessments made without such deduction are illegal and ultra vires. the prayer is made therefore for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, order or direction to quash the assessment orders in question. the petition is resisted by the respondents on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1956 (HC)

K. Velukutty and ors. Vs. State

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-23-1956

Reported in : 1956CriLJ1020

koshi, c.j.1. these three revision petitions arise from a pending prosecution before the quilon sessions court. in c. c. no. 1 of 1955 the quilon police sought to prosecute five persons for commission of certain offences punishable under the indian penal code. all the five persons were alleged to have committed the offence of cheating (section 420), accused 3 and 5, who are public servants, of taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act (section 161) and accused 1, 2 and 4 abetment thereof (section 165-a).the case happened to be filed directly before the sessions court as per the provisions of the criminal law amendment act, 1952 and the charge-sheet was laid on 5-9-1955. in due course-all the five accused persons entered appearance and afterwards, on 8-10-1955 three of them, to wit accused 3, 4 and 5 filed a petition (criminal m. p. 89) before the lower court alleging that the prosecution was not maintainable inasmuch as the inclusion of the offences under section 161 and section 165-a was quite unwarranted as the facts alleged did not constitute the commission of any offence under either section and the case of cheating was compounded between the parties with the permission of the court which had originally seisin of the case.the party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused persons laid his complaint before the-police on 3-10-1953 and the p. i. r. which was sent to the sub-divisional magistrate, quilon referred only to sections 420 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1956 (HC)

Varki Chacko Vs. Ouseph Pramena

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-05-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker48

i.k. joseph, j. 1. this appeal arises out of a suit by the representatives of a prior mortgagee-auction-purchaser for recovery of possession of mortgaged property from the representative of the puisne mortgagee-auction-purchaser, on payment of the mortgage money. the facts necessary for the decision of the appeal may be briefly stated.2. the property which is the subject-matter of the suit belonged to one mathen augusthy of pulickal. on 20-3-1088 he executed a simple mortgage in favour of one chandy devasia who sued on it in o. s. no. 234 of 1099 and obtained a decree (ext. b) on 18-4-1099. in execution of the decree be purchased the property on 21-10-1101 and then transferred the same under ext. aa dated 26-2-1102 to one. mathoo mathai who obtained a record of delivery (ext. c) dated 27-3-1103. at the time of institution of that: suit there were three later mortgages one of which was a usufructuary mortgage (ext. h) dated 22-9-1093 in favour of one mathoo devasia who had sub-mortgaged the same on 20-7-1095.as the usufructuary mortgagee was not a party to o. s. no. 234 of 1099, mathoo matbai could not get effective physical possession under ext. c. the other two mortgages were two sknple mortgages of 1092 and 1095 in favour of one narayana iyer, charging the plaint property and another, narayana iyer instituted a suit, o. s. no. 150 of 1101 against mathen augusthy the mortgagor and mathoo devassia the usufructuary mortgagee, and obtained a decree, copy of which has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1956 (HC)

V.N. Rama Iyer Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-06-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker1

varadaraja iyengar, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiff a discharged railway servant whose suit for damages for wrongful 'removal from the service', has been dismissed by the court below, and the only question is whether the plaintiff was removed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.2. the plaintiff v. n. rama iyer entered service on 28-6-1921 as a temporary relieving clerk in the south indian railway company. after probation for 3 months he was confirmed as a relieving clerk. he got his first appointment as a station master on 13-3-1934 drawing rs. 60 and was still in that cadre when the government of india acquired the railway as a going concern. that was on 1-4-1944. the plaintiff was subsequently promoted to rs. 52 in the scale of rs. 50-60 from 1-6-1946. on 4-6-1946 the plaintiff was transferred temporarily to the ernakulam south station, the post of the station master of which had been graded as rs 60-70 and he joined duty there on 18-4-1946.but soon thereafter he was asked to leave it and go to lovedale, a hill station. the plaintiff was unwilling to leave ernakulam and would not obey in spite of the insistent orders of the district operating superintendent (d. o. s.). he refused even to hand over charge to the relieving officer. so charges were framed against the plaintiff accusing him of 'grave misconduct' and he was removed from service by ext. ap order of the district operating superintendent dated 30-4-1947 with effect from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1956 (HC)

K.J. Mathew Vs. First Member, Board of Revenue and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-30-1956

Reported in : [1957]8STC854(Ker)

1. the petitioner is a tobacco licensee (a class) whose turnover has been estimated at rs. 1,20,000 in respect of the accounting period, 1st january, 1952,10 31st march, 1952, and at rs.6,24,000 in respect of the accounting period, 1st april, 1952, to 31st march, 1953. the correctness of the estimate is not disputed and the petitioner admits liability to sales tax 'at the rate of three pies for every indian rupee in such turnover' as directed by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the travancore-cochin' general sales tax act, 1125.2. sub-section (2) of section 3 of the travancore-cochin general sales tax act, 1125, provides :-subject as aforesaid, the sale of any of the goods mentioned below shall be subject to a tax at the rate specified in respect thereof, at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed ; and the tax shall be paid by the dealer concerned on his turnover in each year relating to such goods and shall be in addition to the tax to which he is liable under sub-section (1) on his total turnover for the year:description' of the goods rate of tax for every indianrupee in the turnoverrelating to such goods,1 2(ix) tobacco four annas'and rule 6 of the travancore-cochin general sales tax rules, 1950 :the sale of any of the goods mentioned in items (1) to (ix) in section 3, saub-section (2), shall be subject to the tax specified in that subsection at the stage of sale by the person who in the state is the first dealer in such goods, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1956 (HC)

Thommen Thomas Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker53; 1957CriLJ635

koshi, c.j. 1. thomas alias kunju who was accused no. 2 in sessions case no. 38 of 1955 on the file of theparur sessions court has preferred this appeal against the convictions made against him by the learned sessions judge under sections 302 and 324. i. p. c. and the sentences passed therefor. finding him guilty for the murder of one thornman he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon to thomman's younger brother ouseph (p. w. 1) and to their mother annam (p. w. 2) he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment respectively for 4 months and 3 months. the judgment directs that all the three sentences shall run concurrently. 2. the case against the appellant was that in the afternoon of 14-12-1953 he stabbed one thomman to death and that he also inflicted stab wounds on thomman's brother and mother - with the self-same weapon to wit, a pen-knife, with which he killed thomman. accused no. 1 in the case, one kurian kurian alias chacko, the appellant's master, was alleged to have abetted the commission of these offences, but the learned sessions judge found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving that part of the case and accordingly acquitted accused no. 1. it would appear that accused 1 and accused 2 met thomman in the afternoon of 14-12-1953 at a toddy shop conducted by p. w. 13. the two accused persons in the case would seem to have been spending the best part of the day in the toddy shop. after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1956 (HC)

The CochIn Coal Company Limited Vs. the State of Travancore-cochIn and ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-10-1956

Reported in : [1956]7STC731(Ker)

m.s. menon, j.1. the petitioner is the cochin coal company limited, a private company incorporated under the indian companies act, 1913, and having its registered office at fort cochin in the madras state. the activities of the company in so far as they relate to the controversy before us are summed up as follows in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition :4. the petitioner-company purchases coal from calcutta through messrs. macheill and barry limited, calcutta who are the managing agents for various coal mining companies. the coal commissioner for india with his office in calcutta allots quantities of coal for purchase by the petitioner company. the coal so purchased is taken to cochin by ships and stacked at the candle island in madras state.6. the subject-matter of the petition accompanying relates to sales of coal to steamers arriving and berthed in travancore-cochin state waters of the cochin harbour to be stored in the ships' bunkers and exported outside the territorial waters of travancore-cochin state for consumption on the high seasand the course of dealing will be clear from the following extract from paragraphs 7 to 10 of the said affidavit :7. these steamers have their respective steamer agents. whenever any coal is required for any steamer the agent for the steamer places an order with the petitioner-company for sale to the steamer of a specified quantity of coal8. when orders are accepted by the petitioner-company at fort cochin the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1956 (HC)

South India Corporation (Travancore) Ltd. Vs. Chief Inspector of Facto ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-20-1956

Reported in : (1957)IILLJ501Ker

ordern. varadaraja ayyangar, j.1. this is a petition filed by the south india corporation (travancore), ltd., under article 226 of the constitution in the matter, of the grant of a licence under the factories act.2. the respondent 3 sundareswaran was the owner of a cashewnut factory at adichanalloor. the petitioner company took from him a lease of the factory commencing from 20 march 1953 and on such footing obtained transfer in their name of licence no. 175, originally issued to the owner under the indian factories act, 1948, by the respondent 1 chief inspector of factories. this licence was in due course renewed for the years 1954 and 1955. before the expiry of the licence the petitioner company applied for renewal for the year 1956, but in this they were opposed by the respondent 3 who had in the meanwhile sold the factory to the respondent 2, national nut company, on 15 december 1955 and wanted the assignee to get the transfer of the licence instead. in support of their claim for renewal the petitioner company put forth the plea that their lease had not been properly terminated by six months' notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act, that in fact they had been authorized by respondent 3 owner, to continue in occupation for the next year (1956) also and that in any event, they being the 'occupier' of the factory in present ultimate control of its affairs within the meaning of the factories act and rules, were entitled to preference. the respondent 3 denied .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //