Kerala Court August 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P. Kunhammad and ors. Vs. V. Moosankutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker76
P. Unnikrishna Kurup, J. 1.These second appeals arise out of a suit for partition filed by the widow of a member of a Mappila Marumakkathavam tarwad for partition and 'separate possession of 7/36th share in the tavazhi properties. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and the 5th defendant, one of her sons, was transposed as supplemental second plaintiff. 2. The trial Court directed a preliminary decree to be passed as prayed for subject to the findings on issues 11 and 14. In appeal, the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 4, 6 and 7 were found not entitled to any share in the properties. So also defendants 13, 20 and 21 were found not entitled to any share in the plaint properties. S. A. No. 444 of 1966 has been filed by the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 4. 6 and 7 and S. A. No. 648 of 1966 has been filed by defendants 13, 20 and 21 questioning the correctness of the lower appellate Court's finding declaring them not to be entitled to any share in the plaint properties. 3. The r...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. R. Narasimhan Potti
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR296(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyeh, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Kerala, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The question referred is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in treating the transaction in question as exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 '2. The reference relates td the assessment year 1964-65 the accounting period being the year ending with August 16, 1963. The assessee was the sole proprietor of a boarding and lodging house at Alleppey by name, Dhanalakshmi Vilas. With effect from August 17, 1962, the assessee converted his proprietary business into a partnership with N. Ramakrishnan Poti and N. Viswanathan Poti, who were his employees. The partnership is evidenced by the deed dated December 4, 1962, a copy of which is produced as annexure 'A'. The Gift-tax Officer took the view that by taking the two ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kelukutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR102(Ker)
Mathew, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala. The questions of law referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the two firms were different and were not to be treated as one firm for the purpose of income-tax assessment 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in reopening the proceedings under Section 147(b) ?' 2. The assessment year is 1960-61. The accounting period is the 12 months ended with December 31, 1959. The assessee is a registered firm constituted under a partnership deed dated July 15, 1959 (annexure B). The assessee carried on business till the end of the accounting year, namely, December 31,1959. Previously there was a firm which was constituted under a deed dated January 1, 1957...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR30(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala. The question referred for decision is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount to be taken for purposes of reduction in rebate on corporation tax under the Finance Act of 1964 is only Rs. 2,09,076.46 and not Rs. 3,50,000 ?'The assessee is the Kerala Financial Corporation constituted under the State Financial Corporations Act of 1951 (Act LXIII of 1951). Section 43 of the said Act declares that for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, the financial corporation shall be deemed to be a company within the meaning of that Act and shall be liable to income-tax and super-tax accordingly on its income, profits and gains.2. For the assessment year 1964-65, the accounting year being the year ending with March 31, 1964, t...
P.A. Seyed Mohamed Koya and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker85
ORDERM.U. Isaac. J. 1. The petitioners herein are two inhabitants of Androth Island which is one of the group of islands known by the name Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands. In exercise of the powers under Article 240 of the Constitution of India, the President promulgated the Laccadive Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Debt Conciliation and Grant of Loans) Regulation, 1964. This was amended by Regulation No. 3 of 1970. The object of the above Regulation is to provide for the conciliation of debts incurred by, and for the grant of loans to the inhabitants of the Union territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands. It is necessary to refer to some of the salient provisions of the Regulation. Section 2 (b) defines debt. Section 3 provides for establishment of Tribunals. Section 4 provides for filing of application by a debtor before the Tribunal for settlement of debt. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 deal with the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal on receipt of an application. Sec...
Parmeswaran Nair Vs. Janaki Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker80
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. I have given anxious consideration to the facts of the case in spite of the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. The question is one of paternity of a child. It is claimed by the plaintiff in the suit that he is not the father of the child though the courts below have found so. The attack against the decision of the courts below requires examination because, according to him, the courts below were acting merely on the uncorroborated testimony of the mother and what has been considered as corroboration does not really amount to it. Now I will state a few facts necessary for the decision of the Second Appeal. 2. First defendant was married to one Kumaran Nair in the year 1946. According to the first defendant, about seven months after the marriage Kumaran Nair left for Colombo and was staying there. He is said to have come back after one year and stayed with the first defendant for 18 days. He again left for Colombo and did not return until the firs...
Subbaya Pillai Lekshmanan Pillai Vs. Narayani Subhashini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker162
Raghavan, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court but lost before the lower appellate court and the second appellate Court is the appellant before us; and the appeal is by leave from the second appellate Judge. And the 'question we have to consider in the appeal lies within quite a narrow compass.2. The appellant is the decreeholder auction-purchaser; and he obtaineda sale certificate in his favour. He made one attempt on the execution side to get recovery of possession of the property in pursuance of the sale certificate and failed. Thereafter, he filed the suit which has given rise to the present appeal. As we have already stated, the trial court decreed the suit, while the lower appellate court and the second appellate Judge dismissed the same.3. The question is whether a person like the appellant, viz., a decree-holder auction-purchaser, who obtained a sale certificate in his favour, is debarred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure from filing a suit f...
Krishnan Vs. Radha Lekshmi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker145
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant who was sought to be evicted by the landlord in R. C. P. 175/62 filed in November. 1962 in the court of the Rent Controller. Ernakulam, The ground relied on for eviction, was default in payment of rent. The petition was contested by the tenant stating that the landlord had agreed to convey the property to him for Rs. 6,000/- and it was in pursuance of that agreement that he did not Pay the rent; he has effected various Improvements in the building and also in the property and the value of such improvements would exceed the arrears of rent due to the landlord. There was, therefore, no arrears, in fact. He also contended that in case any arrears were found due from him he should be given 6 months' time to discharge it. On 12-8-1963 orders were passed by the Rent Controller for eviction of this petitioner. On 6-2-1964 the petitioner filed I. A. 406/64 for reviewing the order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner was a g...
P.K. Yeshodamma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR54(Ker)
Mathew, J. 1. This is a reference made at the instance of the assesseeunder Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The question of law referred is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the rebate contemplated under Section 87(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the sum of Rs. 6,000 being the insurance premium on the policy of the life of the assessee's husband paid not by the assessee but by the assessee's husband ?'3. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1964-65. The assessee is P. K. Yeshodamma, wife of Shri P. Narayanan Vaidyar. The assessee and her husband were partners in a firm called Madhava Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ernakulam. Shri P. Narayanan Vaidyar had taken out an insurance policy on his own life and the premium in regard to the same amounted to Rs. 6,000 and that was paid by him. In the assessment year 1964-65, the Income-tax Officer included in the income of the wife the share of the...
P. Kunhikannan Nair Vs. N. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker90
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This second appeal atthe instance of the decree-holder stems from an application under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, made by the judgment-debtor to record full satisfaction of the decree passed against him. The decree itself was one for arrears of rent and also for removal of certain kuzhikkoors planted in Item 1 of the plaint schedule by the defendant. The judgment-debtor, it appears, wanted to file an appeal, but instead he avers that the parties came to an agreement, Ext. A-3, pursuant to which he applied for the recording of the adjustment of the decree. The terms of Ext. A-3 were so construed by the decree-holder as to furnish a defence for him against the certification of the adjustment. The courts below recorded part satisfaction of the decree on the strength of Ext. A-3 and dissatisfied with the order, the decree-holder has come up in second appeal contending that Ext. A-3 did not actually amount to an adjustment of the decree, but envisaged su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »