Kerala Court December 1972 Judgments
Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: [1974]97ITR372(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Quilon, to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner, for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64 is challenged in these proceedings. The petitioner is a firm with its registered office in Quilon, doing business of processing cashewnuts in factories and importing raw nuts from Africa, and purchasing the same from Quilon and its suburbs, and from Trichur and Tellicherry. Copies of the notices sought to be quashed are exhibit P-8 in O.P. No. 581 of 1972 for the assessment year 1963-64, exhibit P-3 in O.P. No. 583 of 1972 for the assessment year 1961-62, and exhibit P-2 in O.P. No. 585 of 1972, for the assessment year 1962-63. The facts leading to the issue of these notices are the same ; and these were stated and arguments advanced with respect to O.P. No. 581 of 1972. The fate of the other two writ petitions was left to depend upon the result of O.P. No. 581 of 1972. I, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC42(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. The question we have to consider in this case is whether the following items of goods are not includible in the Central sales tax registration certificate granted to the petitioner. The items of goods are :(1) Cultivation: Garden implements, irrigation equipments including water supply fittings, pumps, etc., soil testing machines and laboratory stores, polythene bags, sheeting and ropes, seeds (tea and shade), mechanical saws, winches, etc., soil fumigants, chemicals, etc., for cultivation.(2) Crop protection : Fertilisers, manures, insecticides, fungicides, acaricides, weedkillers, treekillers, dusters, sprayers, blowers and chemicals, respirators and eye shields, etc., for use in tea cultivation for crop protection.2. Before considering the question, the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rules may be noted. Section 8(1) of the Act reads :8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.-(1) Every dealer, who in the c...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sidhik Moulavi Vs. Nabeesa Beevi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1020
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. The main question in this revision petition arising out of a proceeding under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a fairly interesting question though a short question. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has held that the petition for maintenance was filed by the first respondent, the wife, after the petitioner divorced her. Still, the Magistrate has held that, since the personal law of the parties, the Mahornedan law, allows maintenance for the wife for the iddat period (3 months and 10 days after divorce), the wife is entitled to maintenance for that period.This conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to be erroneous, in view of the very language of Section 488 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and more so. in view of the decision of this Court in Abdurahiman Musaliyar v. Neliyaparambath Ayissu : AIR1962Ker234 . where Govinda Menon J., following the decision of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Ahmad Giri v. Mst. Begha AIR 1955 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnikkal Narayanan Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker97; 1972CriLJ1637
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner. Kunnikkal Narayanan, has been detained under the Maintenance of internal Security Act, 1971, for short, the Act. He has prayed in this petition as amended by order on C.M.P. No, 7630 of 1972 and by order on C.M.P. No. 14154 of 1972 for the following reliefs :--(1) for a declaration that Section 5(a) of the Act is illegal and unconstitutional, (2) for a declaration that part (b) in paragraph 19 (1) of the Kerala Security Prisoners' Order is illegal. (3) that the Government Order dated 23-12-1971 marked as Ext. R1 and produced along with the counter-affidavit made on behalf of the State on 19-12-1972 in answer to C.M.P. No. 7630 of 1972 be quashed and (4) that a direction be issued that the three books; (1) Four Essays on Philosophy by Mao Tse-Tung, (2) Mao Papers by Jerome Ch'en and (3) Mao Tse-Tung by Stuart Sehram, be delivered to the petitioner. 2. The three books referred to above were sent to the petitioner but he was not permitted to receive t...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Yoosuf Vs. Kumaranelloor Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker167
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The question raised In this writ petition is whether an amount due to a Panchayat under a contract whereby the right to conduct certain cultural programme in a property belonging to the Panchayat was farmed out to the petitioner who was the highest bidder at on auction conducted by the Panchayat, can be recovered by the Panchayat by resorting to the procedure for recovery of taxes, cesses, fees etc. prescribed under Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner was granted by the Panchayat the exclusive right to conduct 'cultural programmes' in a property belonging to the Panchayat situated in survey No, 19/G of Perumayikad Village for a period of three months commencing from 25-7-1970 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,130/-. that being the highest bid amount fetched at a public auction held by the Panchayat for farming out the said right Out of the aforesaid bid amount the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,71...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR582(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The question referred to us is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was, right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,225 transferred to the contingencies reserve account, the sum of Rs. 30,475 transferred to the development reserve account and the sum of Rs. 23,417 transferred to the special reserve account are not to be deducted in arriving at the taxable income of the assessee-company '2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of distribution of electricity. It is governed by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. For the year ending March 31,1965, relevant for the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee claimed that the sums appropriated by it towards ' contingencies reserve ', 'development reserve 'and 'specia...
Tag this Judgment!Poonkakandi Puthiyaveettil Chandu Nair Vs. Mundamkandi Kuttiambeth Abd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Ker17
Govindan Nair, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of Madhavan Nair J. in second appeal No. 551 of 1965. The appeal is by the defendant. The question is whether the second appeal taken by the plaintiff before this Court was maintainable. The learned Judge who heard the appeal held it was. It is urged before us that this decision requires reconsideration. We think, the appellant is entitled to succeed on this contention. 2. The suit was for rent for a year. Rs. 25/-. The suit was originally filed as a small cause suit. The defendant raised the contentions that the plaintiff had no title to the property and the lease pleaded was untrue. The defendant also contended that in view of the defence that the plaintiff was not entitled to; the property, the suit should not be tried as a small cause suit. The plaintiff thereafter withdrew the suit and the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court dealt with the matter as if the suit was a regular suit. Issue No. 2 raised in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankarappa Gounder Vs. K.C. Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker149
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. These appeals arise out of O. S. 65 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Ottapalam. The plaintiff, who filed the suit on 22-12-1956. was transposed as the 52nd defendant and the 18th defendant was transposed as the plaintiff by the order dated 8-6-1965 passed in I. A. 447 of 1965.2. The suit as originally instituted, was for partition, and separate possession of the plaintiffs share in plaint Bl to F schedule items based on the1 Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act (Act 32 of 1955). The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13 are members of Kunnathat Matambil Swaroopam known as Mannarshat Nair Veedu. It is an ancient chieftain family. There are two sthanams attached to that family which are held by the two senior-most male members of the family and known as Moopil Sthanam and Elaya Sthanam, the incumbents being known as Moopil Navar or Valiya Nayar end Elaya Nair. There are properties attached to the twosthanems. The senior-most female memb...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas George Vs. Skariah Joseph and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker140
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J.1. A very interesting question is raised before me. The plaintiff in a suit moved a petition to withdraw the suit under Order 23. Rule 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. While that application was pending, and apparently before the Court judicially noticed that application, the plaintiff sought to withdraw, that application by another application. This was objected to by the 2nd defendant who is the revision petitioner. According to him, when once the plaintiff moves for withdrawal, becomes automatically operative and he cannot be allowed to go back upon his earlier motion. This plea was not accepted by the Court below and hence the 2nd defendant has come up in revision.2. It appears to me that if any plaintiff can withdraw .a suit at any time after the institution of the suit he can equally well withdraw his application moved under Order 23. Rule 1 (1) of the Civil P. C. before it is acted upon. It is more so because even an application is not contemplat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mosanobu Nakai, (by Blue Bay Fisheries ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR414(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to us for our decision:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the skipper of the fishing trawler is a 'technician' as laid down in the Explanation to Section 10(6)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is one Sri. Mosanobu Nakai, the skipper of a fishing trawler, a specialist in the field of fishing by using deep-sea going trawlers, a Japanese, whose services have been obtained by the Blue Bay Fisheries who have been assessed for and on behalf of the said Nakai for the year 1966-67. Nakai was being paid reasonably high salary, Rs. 3,000 per month, with other facilities as well and it has been assumed in the proceedings before the income-tax authorities that the remuneration that he received during the entire accounting period relating to the assessment year fell for consideration of the question of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »