Kerala Court September 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.
V. Damodaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1972
Reported in: [1974]96ITR335(Ker)
Raghavan, C.J. 1. The assessee is a businessman carrying on several businesses having his head office at Trivandrum and branch offices at Kilimanoor, Madurai and Karettu. He has also been an income-tax assessee for a long time. These references relate to the five assessment years 1953-54 and 1955-56 to 1958-59. The assessee's accounting year was the Malayalam year, which ends by the middle of August every Gregorian year. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee during the years mentioned above to pay advance tax under Section 18A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. Instead of paying the demanded amounts, the assessee filed estimates under Section 18A(2) and on the basis of the said estimates paid advance tax. Ultimately, for the several years, he filed returns ; and the Income-tax Officer finally determined his incomes too. Of course, there were appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, but the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer...
In Re: State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1288
E.K. Moidu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in these criminal references is whether the trial Magistrate has the right to dispense with the Presence of a person and remove him from partv array if it is conclusively established that he is not an accused person charged with any offence in the case under enauirv or trial.2. These references came before us on account of an order of a learned single iudge of this court under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act. 1958. The District Magistrate (Judl.) Tellicherrv referred these cases under Section 438 Criminal P. C. to this Court to pass an order in accordance with law setting aside the order of the Sub Magistrate, Cannanore passed on 30-11-1971 in C.C. 984/1971 and C C. 985/1971.3. On the strength of a First Information statement of one Assanand Kundan two separate crimes were registered at the police station. Pavangadi on 25-5-1970. There were 7 accused persons in the first crime and 5 in the other in each of which the off...
Sher Behudoor Vs. Pasupathy Upadhyaya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker175; (1973)ILLJ516Ker
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The judgment-debtor in a suit for recovery of certain amounts from the defendant is the revision petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte as prayed for. In execution of the decree, attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner was ordered by the Court. A sum of Rs. 35/- per mensem used to be deducted from the salary of the revision petitioner by the employer and deposited in Court in partial discharge of the amount due under the decree from the revision petitioner. This revision arises out of an order allowing the respondent herein to withdraw the amount lying in deposit. 2. Sri M. S. Kurien, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argues that this order is not sustainable, as it is passed in violation of the protective provisions contained in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the learned counsel is that, in all, the revision petitioner gets only Rs. 286/- per mensem, and out of that a sum of Rs. 243/- is not atta...
Sanku Balan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ844
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The accused in C.C. Number 173 of 1971 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottarakkara, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1971 before the Sessions Court, Quailing, is the revision petitioner. He was charged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadakkal, for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of a child while driving his car MSX. 9049 on 15.6.1971. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the trial Court and his driving licence was suspended for a period of three months among other minor sentences imposed. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal.2. The main attack against the finding of the trial Court is that there has not been a proper appreciation of the evidence in the case and that the learned Magistrate was to a large extent swayed by the consideration that the accused was seen on the wrong side of the road at the time of the incident. T...
State of Kerala Vs. Ouseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ872
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. This is the second time I am called upon to consider the propriety of an order passed by the Sub Magistrate. Ferumbavoor granting bail to accused charged under Section 302, I.P.C. The matter having come before me in quick succession, I think it necessary to tell the Magistrate in clear terms about his jurisdiction to grant bail in murder cases.2. The facts of the case are that on 27.5.1972 at 11.00 p.m. there was some incident in which one Lonappan aged about 22 met with his death. His body was seen floating in the water near-by. The FIB was registered on 28.5.1972 at 12.15 p.m. No person was named in the FLR as accused and at that time it was resumed to be a case of drowning. Post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. On 10th and 11th June. 1972 three Gersons were questioned by the police. From the materials thus available, the police arrested the first and 4th accused on 11.6.1972 at 7.00 p.m. and the 2nd accused on 12....
Chandrasekharan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ538
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. Proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town Station, Palghat, against 54 persons, who are the petitioners here, under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. A preliminary order under Section 112 of the Code was passed and served on them. The substance of the charge against the petitioners was that they, who are residing within the local limits of the Executive First Class Magistrate. Palghat, were indulging in unlawful acts and were engaged in other illegal acts leading to imminent breach of the peace. The petitioners are said to be active members of the Mazdur Sangh and are alleged to be a violent type of people and that their illegal activities resulted in communal clashes and riots in the Palghat town. It is said that satyagraha was going on in front of the shop of one Subramania Moothan and Krishna Moothan, that on 8.6.1972 the activities of the petitioners became violent, that they manhandled one...
A. Achuthan Vs. Yooseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ540
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The defendant-judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 6 of 1963 of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat, initiated proceedings before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda, under Section 476 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the plaintiff-decree-holder in the said suit for offences punishable under Sections 177, 181 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation against the plaintiff was that he swore to a false affidavit in the course of the execution proceedings to mislead the Court and to insult the defendant so as to secure an order of attachment in execution. The learned Munsiff invoked Section 479-A. Sub-section (6) of Cr.P.C. as the appropriate section governing the matter in controversy and held that the petition was without any bona fides. The learned Munsiff considered the various accusations levelled against the plaintiff by the defendant and found that they were absolutely false and observed:Taking into account all these circumstances st...
ikkorakutty Vs. E.M. Hariharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ker31
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The landlord, a retired District Edu. Officer (retired, but not tired), now in his sixties, worth in terms of material assets Rupees Seven lakhs on his estimate, having started, in his pursuit to better his lot, a tutorial college, conducting the classes mostly at his house, and sometimes in his cinema hall, filed R. C. O. P. No. 14 of 1967 on the file of the Rent Controller (Munsiff) of Irin-jalakuda, purported to be an application under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965), in an attempt to recover possession of the petition schedule building, wherein the tenant had been carrying on a coffee-stall-cum-hotel for over a decade in a bid to carn a sum of Rs. 8/- per day to keep life going for himself and the members of his family.2. Though the petition is purported to be one under Section 11(4) (iv) only, from the averment in the petition and the manner in which the parties have understood the matter, I have no hesitat...
A.K. Venkiteswaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR233(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, J.1. The question referred to us for decision under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 300 being the room rent paid at Ernakulam is not an allowable deduction under Section 16(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Now, the relevant facts of the case. The assessee who is an Income-tax Officer was posted at Ernakulam. In the return of income filed by him he claimed a deduction of Rs. 300 by way of expenses under Section 16(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This was the amount of room rent paid by him in Ernakulam for his stay. According to him this expenditure was met wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties and since by the conditions of his service he was forced 'to stay at Ernakulam, the rent payable was wholly, necessarily and exclusiv...
Mulji Ratanshi and Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC596(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. The question we have to decide in this case is, whether the gunny bags, in the case of a sale of copra packed in gunny bags, can be treated as a commodity on which the parties had a different contract. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in such cases is found in Commissioner of Taxes, Assam v. Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 S.T.C. 84 (S.C.) and M. A. Razack & Company v. The State of Madras [1967] 19 S.T.C. 135 (S.C.). We are of opinion that in the case before us the price of the bags in which the copra was packed and sold is insignificant compared to the price of the copra itself. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court applies to the case.2. The result is that the revision case is allowed. The Sales Tax Officer will be entitled to collect only 2 per cent, as tax on the value of the gunny bags-the same rate of tax he can collect on the copra. In the circumstances, we do not pass any order regarding costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »