Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1960 Page 1 of about 31 results (0.010 seconds)

Aug 23 1960 (HC)

Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-23-1960

Reported in : [1961]42ITR528(Ker)

..... all the disputes as between the managing agents and the company without further protracting the proceedings in court, and also acting on the advice of certain common friends who have mediated in the matter the parties have agreed as follows :'(i) that the managing agents, namely, the malabar industrial syndicate hereby resign their office of managing agency of the first respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1960 (HC)

Chinnaswamy Koundan Vs. Anthonyswamy and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-13-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Ker161

m. s. menon, j.1. the 1st defendant in o. s. no. 131 of 1950 of the court of the subordinate judge of chittur is the appellant before us. he challenges the correctness of the lower court's decision that the decree and sale in o. s. no. 213 of 1107 of the munsiff's court of chittur are not binding on the l/4th share of the plaintiff in the propertied concerned' in that suit.2 the prayer portion of the plaint according to the agreed translation reads as follows;'the court may therefore be pleased to pass a decree:a. setting aside, on declaring that the decree, the execution proceedings, sale, sale certificate and delivery proceedings in o. s. no. 213 of 1107 of this court are not binding on the plaintiff or on plaintiff's one-fourth share over the plaint schedule property and are void; b. awarding the plaintiff separate possession of one-fourth share in the plaint schedule properties after partition by metes and bounds with future mesne profits at the rate of 1000 paras of paddy and rs. 375/.- per annum;c. if for any reason the court is of opinion that the plaintiff cannot obtain the reliefs stated in paras (a) and (b) above mentioned, granting the plaintiff an alternative relief by directing such of the defendants as are found to be liable, to pay the plaintiff rs. 30,000/- as damages caused to the plaintiff as a result of the fraud in execution proceedings and sale in the above mentioned o. s. 213;d. ordering the 5th defendant to pay past mesne profits for the years 1109 to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1960 (HC)

K.P. Kochanujan Thirumulpad Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-07-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Ker324

ansari, c.j. 1. we are in the happy position of having to decide this writ petition, after hearing very able arguments by the advocates of both the parties; and we wish to include, in acknowledging the assistance, the junior lawyers of both the parties as well, who have been assisting the seniors in the case. 2. the events, that have led to the powers of this court being invoked by the writ petition, can be shortly narrated. the petitioner claims to be a landlord at ernakulam and entitled to the usufructs of the lands owned by his family. he complains that the provisions of the kerala agrarian relations bill, 1957, relating to scaling down of rent, slab rate regarding compensation, ceiling, and automatic deprivation of ownership on an appointed date, amount to inroads on his rights of property. he further claims the provisions to be expro-priatory, discriminatory, opposed to the petitioner's fundamental rights, and create a new type of landlordism of the tenant. it is common ground that the aforesaid bill had, on june 10, 1959, been passed by the then legislative assembly of thisstate; and a copy of the bill, signed by the speaker of the assembly, was presented to the governor, who, under article 200, reserved the bill for the consideration of the president of the republic. that article provides that when a bill has been passed by the legislative assembly of a state or, in, the case of a state having a legislative council, has been passed by both houses of the legislature of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1960 (HC)

itty Kurian and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-02-1960

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 by virtue of section 49-a of the banking companies act 1949 -- act 10/1949, all persons, other than a banking company, the reserve bank, the state bank of india and any other banking institution notified by the central government, have been prohibited from accepting, from the public, deposits of money withdrawable by cheque, and it is also alleged that section 49-a of the act is ultra vires and void.4. the petitioner further claims that he is entitled to practise any profession and to carry on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1960 (HC)

Abdul Azees and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of I.T., Kerala and Coimbatore

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-07-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Ker296

ansari, j.1. the assessees before us are the seven minor children of one haji essa haji abdul sathar sait. their father is the second son of a mamon lady called assai bai, who had by a settlement deed of 1945 had conveyed some of her properties to the seven as well as to the other children to her son haji essa sait. she had also settled other properties described in schedule a to the deed to the children of her other son haji essak; but he has only one daughter. similarly properties mentioned in schedule c to the deed had been given to the issue of her yet another son haji hassan; hut he also has only a daughter. in this reference we are not concerned with properties covered by a and c schedules, but only with what had been settled on the seven minor children of haji essa, all the beneficiaries have been by the deed declared entitled to the properties according to the moha-medan law and as the children belonging to haji essa's branch are seven, a question has arisen whether their income from the properties should be assessed like those of an association of person.2. the income-tax officer had held that the shares of the grand-children are not determined and therefore they could not take advantage of section 9(3) of the income-tax act, which reads as follows:'where properties owned by two or more persons and their respective shares are definite andascertainable, such persons shall not in respect of such property be assessed as an association of persons but the share of each .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1960 (HC)

C.M. Francis Vs. the State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-01-1960

Reported in : [1961]12STC166(Ker)

t.k. joseph, j. 1. the four appellants were carrying on business in partnership, and for non-payment of a sum of rs. 1,01,716-27 np. due from them as sales tax, they were prosecuted before the first class magistrate, ponkunnam, who convicted and sentenced them to pay fines. the magistrate specified in the order the amount of tax which they had failed to pay. thereafter a warrant was issued by the magistrate to the collector, kottayam, for recovering the amount and the latter sought execution of the same in the district court, kottayam, by attachment and sale of their properties. the appellants filed objections and the two points raised by them in the court below were :(1) that the warrant was issued without jurisdiction, and(2) that the properties sought to be attached did not belong to them. these objections were overruled by the additional district judge, kottayam, and this appeal has been preferred from the order allowing execution as prayed for.2. the point pressed in appeal is that the warrant which was sought to be executed was issued without jurisdiction. execution was applied for in this case under section 386 of the code of criminal procedure which provides as follows : -386. (1) whenever an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may- (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1960 (HC)

Joseph Pothen Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-06-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Ker259

orderc.a. vaidialingam, j. 1. three prayers are asked for by the petitioner in these proceedings under article 226 of the constitution.they are:-(a) the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or direction prohibiting respondents 1, 3 and 4, namely, the state of kerala, executive engineer, roads and buildings, trivandrum, and sri ratnaswamy, p. w. d. contractor, trivandrum respectively from entering into or trespassing upon the property mentioned in the schedule or constructing a wall in the property or in any other manner interfere with the ownership and possession by the petitioner of the wall on the eastern side of the schedule property:(b) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1, 3 and 4 to remove the wall if they have already constructed it, on the property, belonging to the petitioner; and(c) a writ of certiorari or other appropriate proceedings quashing the order, ext. p-2, as infringing the petitioner's right under article 19(1)(f) of the constitution.2. i am not inclined to entertain any of these requests in proceedings under article 226. so tar as the prayer (c) is concerned, namely, for quashing the order ext. p-2, it may be stated that the said order is one passed by the executive first class magistrate, trivandrum on 2-12-1960 under section 144 of the criminal procedure code. whatever may be the merits of the order, or the attack made as against that order, the petitioner has got appropriate remedies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1960 (HC)

Mrs. George Mathew Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala and Coimbato ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-06-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Ker353; [1961]43ITR535(Ker)

raghavan, j.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras a-bench has referred the following question to the high court under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act:'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to initial and extra depreciation under section 10(2) (vi) and (via) in respect of the new diesel engines fitted to the buses in the place of petrol engines'.2. the assessee is a transport operator with a fleet of eight buses. during the accounting year ending on 16-8-1954 he purchased two new diesel engines, one on 16-3-1954 for rs. 9990/- and the other on 15-7-1954 for rs. 9946/-. these engines were installed in two buses in replacement of the petrol engines and for the accounting year ending on 16-8-1954 she claimed normal depreciation under section10(2)(vi) paragraph (1), initial depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) paragraph (2) and extra depreciation under section 10(2)(via).the income-tax officer allowed normal depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) paragraph (1) for five months from 16-3-1954 in the case of one of the buses and for one month from 15-7-1954 in the case of the other and refused to allow initial and extra depreciations under section 10(2)(vi) paragraph (2) and section 10(2)(via). this order has been upheld both by the appellate assistant commissioner and the income-tax appellate tribunal. aggrieved by the order the assesses has got the above question referred to the high court.3. we would at the outset .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1960 (HC)

City Corporation of Trivandrum Vs. V.P.N. Arunachalam Reddiar and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-28-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Ker356; 1960CriLJ1467

sankaran, c.j. 1. this appeal arises out of a prosecution instituted under the provisions of the prevention of food adulteration act (act 37 of 1954). the food inspector of the trivandrum corporation started the prosecution by filing a complaint against the two accused who are the respondents in this appeal. the prosecution case is that the shop, bearing tc no. 698 at karamana within the corporation limits, belongs to the first accused and the main business carried on in that shop is the sale of oils and other food stuffs. the second accused is said to be an employee under the first accused, and it was thesecond accused who was in charge of the sales conducted in the shop. the allegation against the accused is that they used to sell adulterated oil in the shop.the second accused is stated to have been selling adulterated oil for and on behalf of the first accused. on 30-7-1957 p. w. 1, the food inspector of the corporation, went to this shop and purchased 12 ozs. of gingilly oil from the accused and after issuing the necessary notice to the accused, sent a portion of it to the public analyst. as a result of the analysis, it was found that the oil which was sold as gingilly oil contained a high percentage of groundnut oil and other fatty acids far above the sanctioned limit. the accused were accordingly prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, read with section 7 of the same act. it was also alleged that for a similar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1960 (HC)

Kesavan Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-15-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Ker36; [1960]11STC747(Ker)

ansari, j.1. this group of sixteen petitions are under art. 226, and challenges the constitutionality of the general sales tax (amendment) act, no. xiv of 1959 whereby sales of toddy have been, charged with the tax, and three amendments been made in the general sales tax act, no. xi of 1125. firstly a new clause (j-3) has been added to section 2 of act no. xi of 1125 and runs as follows:(j-3) 'toddy' means the fermented or unfermented juice drawn from cocoanut, palmyra date or any other kind of palm tree, but shall not include juice drawn into receptacles freshly coated internally with lime or otherwise treated so as to prevent any fermentation'.2. the next is in section 4 where the words 'other than today, arrack' have been substituted, and the section now reads as follows :'the provisions of this act shall not apply to the sale of electrical energy and any goods other than toddy, arrack and foreign liquor on which duty is or may be levied under the travancore-cochin prohibition act, 1950, or the madras prohibition act, 1937, as in force in the malabar district referred to in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the states reorganisation act, 1956 or the travancore or cochin opium act or the opium act, 1878, (central act i of 1878)'.3. the last addition is to schedule i of act no. xi of 1125 where the words 'other than toddy' have been put after 'wine and liquors' in column (2) of item (1). because of these amendments the vendors of toddy have now become liable to pay the sales .....

Tag this Judgment!

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