Kerala Court June 1973 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.
R.P. Goyal and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker85
P. Govindan Nair, Ag. C.J.1. These are petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of habeas corpus or other directions or orders commanding the release of Sri Rambilas Gokulka of M/s. Suresh Kumar Raiendra Kumar. a firm carrying on trade in foodgrains in Mattancherry town (O. P. No. 1977 of 1973), and of Sri K. R. Mehta, a partner of M/s. C. K. N. Mehta and Company, dealing in foodgrains in Cochin (O. P. No. 1978 of 1973), on the ground that Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been infringed in ordering their detention under Section 3 (1) fa) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Ext. P2 order in each of the original petitions mentioned above. There are also prayers in the petitions for quashing Exts. P2 and P3 in each of these cases by the issue of writs of certiorari or other directions or ordera 2. Ext. P2 in each of these cases is an order of the 2nd respondent, the Additional Di...
N.N. Subramania Iyer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR228(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. For the assessment year 1970-71, he submitted a return of his net wealth before the second respondent, the Wealth-tax Officer, Palghat, The return related only to his non-agricultural assets. He did not include any agricultural assets in the return on the ground that all his agricultural lands were in the possession of tenants, and the said lands vested in the State Government on January 1, 1970, by virtue of Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which was before the valuation date. He claimed that the compensation payable by the Government for the said lands was not net wealth in respect of the year to which the assessment related. The second respondent rejected the claim, and made an assessment against the petitioner by his order, exhibit P-3, dated March 19, 1971, by including in his net wealth a sum of Rs. 1,68,000 on account of compensation obtainable by him from the Government. In arriving at the...
Poovappulli Govindan Nair Vs. Madathil Kalam Harijan Kandan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker45
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. Wesee no ground to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court, refusing the revision-petitioner's application for issue of an interim injunction. The suit filed by him O. S. 4 of 1970 was one for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, from trespassing on the property. The Respondents claimed tenancy rights. The Revision-petitioner made an earlier application I. A. 17 of 1970 for an interim injunction. As the question of tenancy was pleaded by the Respondents, the I. A. was referred to the Land Tribunal for decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 125. Clause (3) of the Land Reforms Act. The matter is still pending before the Land Tribunal. While so the present petitioner made another application, out of which this revision arises, for an interim injunction against the Respondents. The trial court granted the injunction. But on appeal, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and vacated the interim injunction.2. ...
Board of Revenue and anr. Vs. P.K. Syed Akbar Sahib
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker285
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. On 1-1-1969. judgment was delivered bv one of us in O. P. No. 390 of 1567 allowing the petition and directinc refund to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 30,500/- collected from him as licence-fee for the years 1952 to 1957 under the Travancore Tobacco Act 1 of 1087 M. E. The lew and Collection of Tobacco tax under the Act had been declared Illegal bv the SUDreme Court in Abdulkhader's case : AIR1962SC922 on the ground that the rules of 1950 and 1951 which authorised the lew and collection and which contained the charging pro-visions, had no independent existence after the implied reneal of the Tobacco Act bv the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944- Thereupon, the Kerala State Legislature passed the Validation Act 9 of 1964 (called Luxurv Tax Act. for short) validating the lew and collection of the tax. aa a tax on luxuries. The Validation Act was challenped in this Court. It was sustained by a learned Judge, in the first instance. On appeal, a Division Bench bv Judg...
Smt. Regina Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR153(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 61,330 is assessable under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The facts are these. The assessee was carrying on business at Trichur. The business consisted of oil mills, soap works and foundry. On September 27, 1954, a private limited company by name ' I. I. Iyyappan Mills Ltd.' was incorporated with a capital of Rs. 5 lakhs. The objects of the company were to acquire and take over the business which the assessee carried on as going concerns. The assessee was one of the promoters. On December 1, 1954, a deed of assignment was executed by the appellant in favour of the managing director of the company, Mr. Lonappan, transferring all his business with their assets and liabilities as going concerns for Rs. 5 ...
C.J. George Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR137(Ker)
Govindan Nair, Actg. C.J.1. These references are at the instance of the assessee and the question referred is in these terms:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the rent received by the applicant-assessee and his co-lessee represents the annual letting value of the building?'The years of assessments are 1967-68 and 1968-69 and the appeals relating to these years before the Tribunal were disposed of by a common order. We dispose of these tax revision cases also by a common judgment.2. The facts are simple. The assessee let out a building, which he constructed on a land which was taken on lease by him, for an annual rent of Rs. 33,000 to a company, M/s. Arborites Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the company'. The land on which the building stood was leased by the assessee on a rent of Rs. 1,000 for a period of ten years. But there was an agreement entered into by the assessee with the owner of the land that the b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR343(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Similar questions arise for determination in all these references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. I. T. Rs. Nos. 77 and 104 of 1971 relate to the assessments of one assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. In I.T.R. No. 94 of 1971 the assessee is different and the relevant assessment year is 1968-69. These assessees are companies holding also shares in other domestic companies. These latter companies have distributed dividends to the shareholders during the accounting years relevant to the above-mentioned assessment years of the assessees. These dividends have been reckoned under the head ' income from other sources ' in computing the total income of the assessee-companies. Under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, a sum equal to 60% of such income by way of dividends paid to the assessees by the other companies is to be deducted in computing the total income for the purpose of assessment of these assessees. The Income-tax Off...
C. K. Babu Naidu Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, a Ward, Calicut, and Another ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1973
Reported in: [1978]112ITR341(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR, Actg. C.J. - These appeals arise from a common judgment of Issac J. dismissing O. P. Nos. 1511 and 1512 and 1969 [C. K. Babu Naidu v. Wealth-tax Officer : [1971]82ITR410(Ker) ]. The two petitioners contended that in ascertaining the taxable wealth of the petitioners the entirety of the income declared by the petitioners for the purpose of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is not liable to be taxed. According to them, the income-tax due on the income declared according to the provisions in section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, must be deducted from the income declared and the net wealth arrived at. The contention is based on the definition of 'net wealth' in section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which is in these terms :'net wealth', means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his n...
Kochumariam Vs. Kishema Vilasam Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker78
Sadasivan, J.1. These are execution appeals arising respectively from O. S. Nos. 14 and 15 of 1969 of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Ernakulam. A common question arises in these appeals and the question is whether Section 60(1) proviso (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to mortgage decrees. Section 60(1) C. P. C. is in these terms.'(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely lands, houses or other buildings, goods money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes government securities, bonds or other securities for money debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the Judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judg-ment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf: Provided that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›