Kerala Court August 1972 Judgments
Prabhakaran Nair Vs. Joseph Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ874
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The petitioner before me is the complainant in C.C. No. 515 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Magistrate's Court Perumbavoor. He filed this complaint against the respondent-accused alleging that the latter was driving K.L.K. 8505 through the Alwave-Perumbavoor road in a rash and negligent manner and that the lorry dashed against his son causing him in-juries on 20.2.1970 at 10.00 A.M. The learned Sub Magistrate took the sworn statement of the complainant and examined witnesses. His states that he perused the first information statement and the scene mahazar in addition to the statements of witnesses at the enquiry. The learned Sub Magistrate found that there was no sufficient ground to proceed with the case and therefore dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against this order the petitioner took the matter in revision before the District Magistrate. Ernakulam and the learned District Magistrate, by his order dated 10th December,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gates Foam and Rubber Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR467(Ker)
Namboodiripad, J.1. Certain proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, gave rise to this reference. The assessee involved is a firm by name ' Gates Foam & Rubber Co., Kottayam ' doing business in rubber products. During the relevant period the firm had four partners and the managing partner was one Mrs. Achamma Sebastian. For the assessment year 1966-67, the firm filed a return showing an income of Rs. 34,480. The profit and loss account submitted by the firm disclosed, among other items debited, payment of commission of an amount of Rs. 39,121 to another firm by name ' Koolfoam Agencies ', referred to hereunder as the agent-firm. The assessment was completed on the basis that the payment of the aforesaid commission was genuine. When the agent-firm in its turn filed its income-tax return and claimed registration, the Income-tax Officer enquired in greater detail about its affairs. It was detected that the only partners of the agent-firm were the children of Mrs. A...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Abdulla Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC436(Ker)
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The sole question in the appeal relates to the validity of Section 14(4) read with Section 46(2)(e) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. After issuing notice and hearing his objections the appellant was called upon by the Sales Tax Officer, Badagara, by exhibit P3 order dated 26th September, 1970, to furnish security for Rs. 27,600 under Section 14(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, read with Rule 6, Sub-rule (1), of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. Since the appellant did not comply with exhibit P3, the Sales Tax Officer issued exhibit P4 notice informing him that prosecution under Section 46(2)(e) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, will be launched against him.3. The appellant, therefore, filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash exhibits P3 and P4 on the ground that Sections 14(4) and 46(2)(e) of the Kerala Gene...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. John Vs. Secretary, Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establis ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ366Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This writ petition has been filed to quash an award Ext. P-6 dated 28-11-1969 passed by the second respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in I.D. No. 41 of 1967. The petitioner is the proprietor of a textile shop by name Vimala Stores, Thodupuzha. In a part of the building wherein he is carrying on the said business, there are a number of tailors engaged in making clothes. According to the petitioner, all of them were engaged by one Vasu Pillai who takes orders from the public. The petitioner is also dealing in ready-made clothes ; and admittedly he used to give orders for making clothes to the above tailors through Vasu Pillai. By April, 1967, these tailors and the persons working under them claimed to be workmen of the petitioner ; and they started an agitation to get their demands recognised by the petitioner, with the result the petitioner was obliged to close his shop for some days. At that time, one K. Y. George, who styled himself as the Convenor of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!K. I. Viswambharan and Brothers and Other Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR588(Ker)
NAMBOODIRIPAD J. - These two references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arise out of the assessments to income-tax of a firm and one of its partners respectively for the assessment year 1967-68 and the three common questions referred are :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in the substaining the levy of the capital gains on the registered firm?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appllate Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the benefits under section 54(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the value of the house property purchased by one of the partners for the residence of the partner ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in disallowing the exemption in respect of Rs. 25000 being the general exemption granted to a registered firm and whether the interpretation placed on the Finance (No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Haji S. Umbichi Koya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker83
Isaac, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India, against whom the respondent got a decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1964 from the Sub-Court, Kozhikode for a sum of Rs. 14,604/- together with interest at 6% from the date of suit2. The facts are not in dispute to a large extent. The respondent sent 43 bags of betel nuts from Calicut Railway Station to Shalimar by railway on 24-1-1963. The goods reached Shalimar on 7-2-1963; and they were unloaded and stored in Shed No. 4/1 on the same day awaiting delivery to the consignee. Unfortunately at about 3-00 P.M. on 8-2-1963, a fire broke out in Shed No. 4; and it affected the goods stored in Shed No. 4/1 also, with the result 40 bags of the respondent's goods were partly destroyed. The undestroyed part was refilled in 25 bags; and those bags were delivered to the consignee after assessing the damages at 60%, along with the three bags found in sound condition. On the basis of the market value of the goods at the relevant time, the respondent claime...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Periakaramalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR65(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, J.1. These are three references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by Section 18 of the said Act. The references concern assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The question in all the three cases is common and a consolidated statement of the case has been drawn up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which has referred the case to us. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theAppellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount standingto the credit of the 'retirement gratuity reserve' is to be treated as'reserve' and has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculatingthe capital under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Companies(Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company owning certain estates andderiving income from tea, coffee and cardamom. Its issued and subscribedcapi...
Tag this Judgment!Tharu Cheru and anr. Vs. Mary and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker125
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 269 of 1959 on the file of the Munsif's Court, Peruvambvoor, are the appellants. The suit is one for declaration that Exhibit P-1, sale deed dated 5-1-1951, is in fraud of the creditors and is, therefore, liable to be cancelled. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation. This finding of the trial Court was upheld by the Additional District Court, Parur, in A.S. No. 144 of 1964 filed by the defeated plaintiffs.2. In the second appeal the main grounds raised are that the Courts below are in error in holding that the suit is barred by limitation, that being a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the proper provision applicable is Article 120, not Article 11 of the Limitation Act of 1908, that the suit is not barred by res indi-cata, and that the plaintiff, even as a single creditor, is entitled to bring a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. The facts of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Kalarikkal Lakshmikutty Amma Vs. Kankath Vettolil Kanhirapally Velappa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker79
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a reference under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of compensation. 2. The appellant is the 1st respondent in the lower court. The second respondent in the lower court was impleaded in the appeal as the first respondent. It was represented before me by counsel for the appellant that the first respondent in the appeal died even during the pendency of the proceedings in the lower court and since his legal representatives were not brought on re-record his name has been struck off from the appeal. The second respondent in the appeal was impleadcd as the third respondent in the lower court on the basis of I. A. 1414 of 1967 filed by him. 3. The lower court by the decision under appeal directed the payment of the entire compensation to the second respondent in the appeal. It is that decision of the lower court that is challenged in the appeal, 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. The first is t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›