Kerala Court July 1972 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.
Jerome Fernandes Vs. the Be-be-rubber Estate Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker45
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent up to the date of suit and future mesne profits. The suit is in respect of an extent of 224 acres 56 cents which forms part of a larger area of 259 acres 56 cents which had been leased out by the plaintiffs pre-decessor-in-office in favour of one A. C. M. Anthraper (deceased) as per a lease deed dated the 17th December. 1926, evidenced by Ext. P1. The leasehold right of Anthraper in respect of 224 acres 56 cents included in the plaint schedule was transferred to the defendant company on the 8th May. 1937, under the assignment deed Ext. P2. The lease Ext. P1 was for a term of 35 years and the said period expired on the 17th December. 1961. Thereafter the plaintiff made demands on the defendant for surrender of possession and since the defendant did not comply with the said demand the present suit has been instituted...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Gift-tax) Vs. Devadasan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR464(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court for consideration under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, by the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the gift is exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 'The facts are as follows: The assessee was having a Burmah Shell agency business and also a bus service. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 it was found by the Gift-tax Officer that 60 per cent, of the goodwill in Burmah Shell agency and 35 per cent, of the goodwill in the bus service were gifted by the assessee to his brothers. The value of the goodwill of the Burmah Shell agency business which was gifted was determined at Rs. 34,200 and the value of the goodwill of the bus service gifted was determined at Rs. 10,500. After allowing the statutory exemption the Gift-tax Officer taxed Rs. 39,...
M. ShamsuddIn and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR323(Ker)
Viswanatha Tver, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,54,862.19 represents income derived by the assessee in the course of trade?'2. The facts are as follows : The assessee, a firm of four partners, owns cashew factories and exports cashew kernels to foreign countries, mostly to U.S.A. The assessee also has forward transactions of sale with some of the foreign buyers. The invoice price of the exports is fixed between the parties in terms ot dollars. For the forward contracts of sale also, the price is stipulated in terms of dollars. At the time of payment the assessee receives the rupee equivalent of the price in dollars.3. The Indian currency was devalued on June 6, 1966. As on that date, the assessee had to receive the value of exports m...
K. Choyi, Income-tax Officer, Assessment-iv Vs. Syed Abdulla Bafakki T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR144(Ker)
ORDERBhaskaran, J.1. These two matters arise out of one and the same case. The criminal revision petition is by the Income-tax Officer (Assessment) IV, Calicut, and the criminal miscellaneous petition is by the 1st respondent in the said criminal revision petition. The criminal revision is stated to be under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Crl. M. P. is under sections 561A and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of discussion, I am referring to parties as arrayed in the criminal revision petition.2. The facts leading to these proceedings in this court may briefly be stated as follows : At about 1 a.m. on December 24, 1970, the police on patrol duty in certain part of Calicut saw the 2nd respondent walking along the road with a bag. The police on suspicion stopped and searched him, and found that the bag with him contained Indian currency notes of 100 rupee denomination which in the aggregate came to Rs. 1,00,000. He was arrested under s...
The Special Officer for Coir, Kerala (Licensing Officer), Trivandrum V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1977Ker88
Raghavan, C.J. 1. I have read the judgment prepared by my learned brother Gopalan Nambiyar, J. and I regret I am not able to agree with his reasoning on the main question in the case. 2. The Central Government has, by notification under Section 2(a)(xi) of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955, declaredcoconut husk, raw and retted, as an essential commodity. The said notification was declared to be beyond the powers of the Central Government by a Single Judge, and the correctness of that decision is the question to be decided in the appeal. 3. The Essential Commodities Act was passed under Entry 33 of List in of Schedule VII to the Constitution, which reads: '33. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,-- (a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products: (b) foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds an...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mambad Timber and Estates (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas332(Ker); [1973]89ITR312(Ker)
ORDERIsaac, J.1. This is an application by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Ernakulam, under Section 559 of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order declaring the dissolution of the Mambad Timber and Estates (Private) Ltd. to have been void. The company was dissolved by this court by an order dated February 13, 1970. In my view, the petition must fail on the short ground that the period of limitation fixed by the above section for the exercise of the power vested in the court thereunder has expired.2. The Mambad Timber and Estates (Private) Ltd. was a private company incorporated in 1955. A scheme for amalgamation of the company with the second respondent, the Ruby Rubber Works (Bangalore) Ltd. which is a public company, by transferring all its assets and liabilities to the latter company in consideration of shares in the said company being allotted to the members of the dissolved company, was sanctioned by this court under Section 394 of the Companies Act in Company Petition No. 5...
Cheria Kannan Vs. Karumbi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker64
N.D.P. Namboodiripad, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the construction of a deed of gift One Valiya Kannan settled under Ext. A-l gift deed dated 26-3-1946 the kanom-kuzhi-kanam rights he held over the suit property in favour of wife Matha and his nephew the defendant to this action. Matha died issue-less sometime before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. According to the plaintiffs, on Matha's death, her share in the disputed item devolved on a tavazhi of which the plaintiffs are the surviving members. The plaintiffs therefore sued for partition and recovery of one-half share in the property. The defendant claimed exclusive title over the property on the basis of Ext. B-2 Will alleged to have been executed by Matha as also certain provisions in Ext. A-l to which both sides are tracing their title. The trial court found that Ext. B-2 was not genuine and gave a decree to the plaintiffs. An appeal by the defendant did not succeed; and hence this second appeal.2. In view of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. A.K.T.K.M. Vishnudatha Antharjanam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR521(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J. 1. These are references at the instance of the revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, and the questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jenmikaram payable by the kanom tenant to the jenmi is compensation for the extinguishment of the entire rights of the jenmi in the land of the kanom holding, as held by the Tribunal ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jenmikaram payable by the kanom tenant to the jenmi is income assessable to tax under the Income-tax Act or only a capital receipt? '2. The assessee is a person governed by the Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The jenmi is defined in Section 2(3) of the Act and the questions referred to this court relate to the assessment of income-tax of the jenmi for eight years 1957-58 to 1963-64, both years inclusive, and for the year 1965-66, For the relevant accounting periods relating to these asse...
P.V. Parameswaran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ535Ker
T.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. The writ petition was referred to a Division Bench by a single Judge, who thought that an earlier Division Bench in M.B. Koyakutty v. Narayanan Kutty Nambiyar, Writ Appeal No. 167 of 1967 accepted the contention of the appellant therein that, once he had been granted exemption by the Madras Government from the minimum educational qualification at the time of his appointment as a lower division clerk, the exemption enured to him even for promotion to the upper division cadre. And the Division Bench, when the writ petition came before it, agreed with the single Judge and said that the decision in Koyakutty's case required reconsideration. The writ petition was consequently referred to a Full Bench.2. In Koyakutty's case, Koyakutty did not have the minimum educational qualification (S.S.L.C.); but he was given exemption by the Madras Government by an order dated 15th April, 1954. The order stated that 'Koyakutty was exempted from the minimum general educational quali...
income-tax Officer, B-ward and anr. Vs. K.P. Varghese Overruled
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR49(Ker)
Raghavan, C.J. 1. I have perused the judgment prepared by Gopalan Nambiyar J., and agreed to by Viswanatha Iyer J., but I regret that I am not able to agree with the main reasoning of my learned brother and the conclusion in the case.2. The facts which lie in a narrow compass are not disputed; and they are stated in the judgment of Nambiyar J. I do not, therefore, recapitulate them.3. In the inclusive definition of ' income ' in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, 'capital gains' chargeable under Section 45 are also included. And under Section 5, the scope of ' total income ' is fixed; and what is provided in Sub-section (1) thereof is that the total income of the previous year of a person who is a resident will include all income from whatever source derived, which is received or is deemed to be received in India by him or on his behalf in such year, or accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year, or accrues or arises to him outside Indi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »