Kerala Court November 1972 Judgments
Kunjan Vava Vs. Pappy Amma Ammukutty Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker169
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The applicant for purchase of kudikidappu right under the Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964) is the revision petitioner. The respondents are the landholders of the property in which kudikidappu is situate. In the application the applicant stated that this kudikidappu is situate in Survey 55/4 comprising 1 acre 64 cents. This property belongs to respondents 3 in number. The respondents are together stated to be entitled to a total extent of 2 acres 57.750 cents of land and they are shown in the relevant columns of the application among the category of persons entitled to more than 2 acres and less than 3 acres of land. The respondents contended that they have only 2 acres 57.750 cents of land on the whole, that they are tenants-in-common and therefore each will be entitled to less than 1 acre and they proposed to apply before the Government for acquisition of other lands for shifting the kudikidappu from the property where it is now situate. The Lend Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!S. Anthony Muthu and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker141
Raghavan, C.J.1. The question involved in these writ petitions is the same; and the petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are all owners of power crushers for crushing sugar-cane; and they are working their power crushers within the reserved area of three sugar mills in the State, one in Chittoor Taluk, another in Tiruvalla Taluk and the third one at Pandalam. The Government of India passed the Sugarcane (Control) Order. 1966 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955. Under Clause 11 of the said Order the Central Government has power, by notification in the Official Gazette, to delegate some or all the powers under the Order, inter alia, to a State Government. By notification (dated 16th July 1966). the Central Government delegated its powers under Clauses 6, 7, 8 end 9 to the State Governments including the State Government of Kerala. The Government of Kerala thereafter issued a notification...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sulekha Bai Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR128(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), is in these terms :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 5(3) of the Gift-taxAct, 1958, applied to the gift under consideration and that the gift wasliable to tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The gift in question was by a deed dated April 7, 1964, executed by the wife in favour of the husband. Earlier, she had obtained this property from her husband by a deed of gift dated April 26, 1957, This gift dated April 26, 1957, was exempted from tax under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. Section 5(1)(viii) at the time of the later gift ran thus :'5. (1) Gift-tax shall not be charged under this Act in respect of gifts made by any person--.. (viii) to his or her spouse, subject to a maximum of rupees fifty thousand in value in the aggregate...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. C.G. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker144
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These three revision petitions arise out of three applications, O. P. Nos. 76/70. 77/70 and 78/70 on the file of the District Court Trichur. Those three applications were considered jointly and a consolidated order was passed by the District Judge and in this Court also I am considering all these together in this order.2. These applications were filed before the District Judge. Trichur. for compensation under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act 1885 read with Section 51. Electricity Act 1910. For supply of electricity electric lines were taken over the property involved in these cases by the Electricity Board who is the respondent in all the three applications. According to the petitioner, who is the same in all the applications, on account of taking electric lines over his property 25 cocoa-nut trees have been cut from it and he has suffered damage on account of it. He also claimed damages for the diminution of the value of the portion of the property underne...
Tag this Judgment!Cherian Dominic and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1972
Reported in: [1975]98ITR283(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our decision :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from slaughter tapping received by the assessee during 1959-60 is agricultural income of the assessee taxable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950? '2. The assessment year is 1959-60. The assessee under an oral agreement with M/s. Kuttanad Rubber Co. Ltd. was entitled to slaughter tap the rubber trees in the estate. The income in question was admittedly derived from this slaughter tapping. It was contended before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that the income so derived is not agricultural income taxable under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for short, ' the Act '. It was urged before the officer that the assessee had not conducted any basic agricultural operations or what may be termed 'operations' as explained by the Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!K. Bhuvanendran and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR139(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J. 1. This is a reference by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the assessment of six individuals for the year 1967-68 under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The question referred is : ' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in adjudicating upon a question not raised in the grounds of appeal ?' 2. By the assessment orders against the six individuals who were at one time members of a joint Hindu undivided family which had become partitioned the accounts of the assessees were rejected and a best judgment assessment was made on the basis of an estimated income per acre in the cardamom estate consisting of 70 acres and the value of the cardamom per kilogram had also been estimated. The assessees appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and one of the points raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer erred in applying a uniform rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Marikar (Motors) Limited Vs. the Sales Tax Officer, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC201(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in motor vehicles and automobile parts. One of the methods which it adopted for sale of motor vehicles is the hire-purchase system. It is well-established by the decisions of the Supreme Court that in the case of such a transaction, the sale takesplace when the ownership of the vehicle is ultimately transferred by the dealer to the customer in fulfilment of the hire-purchase agreement. The principles for fixing the sale price under such a transactionfor the purpose of assessing sales tax have been laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision in Johar and Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 S.T.C. 213 (S.C.). The court said :This case in our opinion brings out the true nature of the payment made as hire in hire-purchase agreement. Part of the amount is toward shire and part towards the payment of price and it would be for the sales tax authorities to determine in an appropriate way the price of the vehicle on the date the hirer ex...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. Makkam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Ker18
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Defendants 1 to 6, 8 and 9 are the appellants in this appeal. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was one for partition of Thekkeveedu paramba which originally belonged in jenmom to the tarwad of the plaintiffs and the deceased father of defendants 1 to 6. Kunhikuttan. The 7th defendant is the widow of the said Kunhikuttan. A prior karnavan of the tar-wad, one kanarukutty, demised the property to one Chandu on kanom. One Ravunni, the uncle of the plaintiffs, took an assignment of this kanom right. While he was in enjoyment under the said kanom, he created a Sub-kanom right on 20-9-1877 under Ext. A-1 in favour of one Chathukutty. Later. Ravunni assigned his rights in the property to two members of his tarwad, namely. Makkam, his sister and her cousin Cheeru. The plaintiffs claimed under the said Makkam while the defendants claimed under Cheeru. Kunhikuttan, the deceased father of defendants 1 to 6, was the son of Cheeru. Ext. A-2 is the assignment by...
Tag this Judgment!Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC226(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The short question arising in this petition is whether the petitioner, a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is liable to pay sales tax on the amount.of packing charges separately shown in the bills for the sale of cement by him. His contention that he is entitled to exemption under Rule 9(f)(ii). of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which provides that in determining the taxable turnover all amounts falling under the head 'charges for packing and delivery', when specified and charged for by the dealer separately without including them in the price of goods sold should be included, (sic) has been negatived. The commodity sold is cement. Exhibit PI, a sample bill states the price for the cement. Packing charges (packing in gunny bags) are stated separately. It is admitted that all the transactions for the two years 1968-69 (the period from 1st November, 1968, to 30th March, 1969) and 1969-70 are cover...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chacko Pulparampil and anr. Vs. Margarete Maria Pulparampil and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker100
Govindan Nair, J. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are the aftermath of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in O. P. No. 71 of 1968 reported in 1969 Ker LT 174 = (AIR 1970 Ker 1 FB). One of the questions considered in that judgment was with whom, the father or the mother, the custody of two infants, Konstanze born on the 15th July, 1964, and Thomas Markus born on the 22nd February, 1966. should be entrusted in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court as parens patriac, in the best interests and for the welfare of the infants. We then came to the conclusion that the custody must be with the mother subject to certain conditions mentioned in paragraph 27 of the judgment which we may extract:'After an anxious consideration of all the aspects we have come to the conclusion that we must entrust the children to the petitioner, the mother. As we indicated, we have to introduce sufficient safeguards for the enforcement of the further orders of this Court. The safeguards that we consider...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »