Kerala Court February 1973 Judgments
M.C. Joseph Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker216
ORDERP. Narayana Pillai, J. 1. What is sought to be quashed here in Ext P-19-order dated November 27, 1969 of the State Government, the first respondent, end certain proceedings which preceded it. From May 2. 1958 ,to June 9. 1960 the petitioner was a Godown Keeper in the Foodgrains depot at Ponnani under the Civil Supplies Department. During that period there was shortage in the stock of rice in that depot. By orders passed by the first respondent and the Board of Revenue the second respondent, the liability of the petitioner for the shortage in the stock of rice was first fixed as Rs. 8,004.22. Later, on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the Government passed Exhibit P-11-order on August 27, 1963 enhancing the rate of shortage or shrinkage allowance in the case of Palghat milled rice. Consequent on that the Board of Revenue sent Ex. P-12 communication dated February 5. 1964 to the District Collector, Alleppey, the third respondent, informing him that the petitioner's liabil...
Tag this Judgment!Cheekutty Vs. the Land Tribunal Alangad and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker1
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This original petition is filed by a kudikidappukaran against the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Alan-gad directing him to shift to a new site offered by the landlord Respondent. The Respondent land owner applied under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act to shift the kudikidappu situated in the A-schedule property belonging to him and occupied by the petitioner. He alleged that he bona fide required the land for an industrial purpose, namely, the conduct of choola business, he also agreed to transfer a new site fit for erecting a homestead and also to pay the reasonable cost of shifting the kudikidappu to the new site. The petitioner opposed that application on the wound that the claim is not bona fide and it is made only as a counterblast to his application for purchase of kudikidappu.The amount offered for shifting the kudikidappu was also stated to be inadequate. The Land Tribunal found that the land is required for the conduct of choola business and...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Income-tax Officer Vs. Ponkunnam Traders
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR366(Ker)
Raghavan, C.J.1. The appellants are the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue); and the respondent, Ponkunnam Traders, a firm, is the assessee. The judgment under appeal is reported as Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, : [1972]83ITR508(Ker) . Since the question involved is fairly simple, we do not propose to state the facts of the case in any detail. The skeleton facts necessary are that the respondent's accounts having been rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the respondent was assessed on the best judgment method without being told what materials were being used against it for such assessment. Therespondent took objection in the writ petition filed by it that such assessment without giving it an opportunity to explain was to be quashed. The single judge accepted the contention and allowed the writ petition ; and the appeal is against that.2. We may just refer to one or two observations from the judgment of the single judg...
Tag this Judgment!Beeravu and ors. Vs. Kathiymma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker226
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. This revision arises from proceedings for restitution. Deceased first defendant is said to have deposited in Court certain amounts when the suit was pending for trial. This is said to have been withdrawn by the deceased plaintiff-The suit was for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. The defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff. Ultimately plaintiff's title was found against and the suit was dismissed. The matter was taken up in appeal and further appeal to this Court. In all these the plaintiff was unsuccessful. The plaintiff had claimed to be the lessor and had alleged that the first defendant was holding the property under a lease. Though the first defendant denied this he had made certain deposits of rent to avail himself of the benefit of the provisions of the Madras Act 17 of 1946 for stay of suit, a part of the amount deposited is seen to have been withdrawn by the deceased plaintiff during the trial. The High Court finally disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC181(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. These revision cases are against a common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in two cases relating to two different assessment years. The State is the petitioner in both the cases and the common assessee the respondent. The questions involved are also the same.2. The assessee is a wholesale dealer in rationed foodgrains like rice and wheat and also a dealer in groceries including coriander and methi. He claimed total exemption from tax on his turnover of sales of controlled rationed focdgiains, which claim the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected, but, on appeal, was allowed by the Tribunal. He had also a contention that the wheat sold by him came within the Notification S.R.O. No. 602/63 dated 24th April, 1963, published in the official Gazette on 2nd June, 1963. This contention was also accepted by the Tribunal. Yet another contention the assessee had was that coriander and methi were oil-seeds coming within Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Lakshmanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1730
ORDERP. Narayana Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal from acquittal in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. hereinafter referred to as the Act, for sale by the respondent on November 21, 1969 to the Food Inspector, Thripunithura, of 600 grams of adulterated Ice-fruit. After dividing the ice-fruit purchased into three equal parts and filling them in separate bottles and adding preservatives a sample bottle was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst who on analysis found that the sample contained saccharin and Dulcin. artificial sweeteners, and was therefore, adulterated. It was then that complaint was filed before the Magistrate by the Food Inspector against the respondent under the Act. The respondent raised several contentions but all of them, except the one relating to ice-fruit being not food, were found against him by the Magistrate. It was following a single Judge's decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1971 (Ker). that the Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Vastian Louise Vs. Andrews and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker235
ORDERG. Viswanath Iyer, J. 1. This original petition is filed by 1st Respondent in O. A. No. 65 of 1972 on the file of the Principal Land Tribunal. Kanjikuzhi. The petitioner is a kudikidappukaran in the property belonging to the 1st Respondent in this original petition. The 1st respondent filed a suit to get the kudikidappu shifted to another property belonging to the 1st respondent as provided for in Section 75 Of the Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964). Pending that suit the Land Reforms Act was amended by Act 25 of 1971. As per this amendment the power to decide the question of shifting the kudikidappu was vested with Land Tribunals constituted under Section 7 of the amended Act and therefore the suit was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 23 of the said Act On the basis of this provision the suit was transferred to the Tribunal. In the proceedings the petitioner's contention was that the landlord does not require the property in which the kudikidappu is now situate for any pur...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.T. Kuttappu and Sons.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR327(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions for our decision :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amounts of Rs. 16,513 is not assessable under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material for the Tribunal to hold that there was no remission or cessation of liability in respect of the sum of Rs. 6,725 ' 2. This is a reference at the instance of the department. The Tribunal held that out of the amount of Rs. 16,513 a sum of Rs. 9,788 cannot be treated as income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because that amount was not allowed to the assessee as a deduction, and, therefore, Section 41 was not attracted. Regarding the sum of Rs. 6,725 the Tribunal held that there was no cessation of any liability and so Section 41 was inapplicable.3. The su...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR314(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law is holding that the profit on the sale of shade trees is assessable as capital gains under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. During the accounting period relating to the year of assessment 1964-65, the assessee sold old shade trees (albizzia) for a sum of Rs. 40,633. The profits and gains arising from such sale were assessed by applying Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee's appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was accepted by that authority on the ground that the profits, if any, arising from the sale constitute agricultural income and therefore could not have been taxed under the Act. The department appealed to the Tribunal and contended before the Tribunal that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›