Kerala Court August 1973 Judgments
The Taliparamba Panchayat Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker64
Gopalan Nambiyar J.1. This writ petition was heard by a Full Bench and disposed of by judgment dated 5th October 1972. It was held that the land acquisition proceedings which had been set afoot, had not been validly withdrawn by the issuance of a notification as required by Section 52 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 7 of the Rules The Government was therefore directed to proceed with the land acquisition until the same is duly terminated by a notification of withdrawal or otherwise. Review Petition No. 91 of 1972 was then filed by Respondents 3. 5 and 6. pointing out that there was in fact a notification dated 19th August 1969 (produced as Ext. R-1 with the review petition) issued under Section 52 (1) of the Act by which the Government withdrew from the land acquisition proceedings The review petition was allowed. This writ petition has accordingly come on for re-hearing.2. The facts are briefly these: About 80 cents in R. S. No. 52/3-B of Taliparamba amsom, was n...
Tag this Judgment!Sastha Pillai Indirammal and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai Kochuparavathi A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker173
Subramanian Poti, J.1. The second defendant in the suit, one Sastha Pillai, along with his mother, the first defendant executed a simple mortgage of items 2 to 5 and 1 acre 71 cents out of item 1 in the plaint schedule in favour of the 3rd defendant, the Caldian Syrian Bank Limited, Trichur, Sastha Pillai belonged to a family governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law and the properties dealt with by him under this mortgage, Ext. D2 of 8-10-1954 were those obtained by him on the death of his father and therefore were necessarily ancestral properties in his hands. The third defendant bank obtained a decree on Ext. D2 mortgage in O. S. 9 of 1957 of the Sub Court, Tiravalla. This was on 24-8-1957. On 1-2-1961 the second defendant and his mother together executed a sale deed for the entire item 1 in favour of the 4th defendant. Item 1 constituted, besides the 1 acre 71 cents included in the simple mortgage, Ext. D2, comprised in Survey No. 472/2, an extent of 1 acre 12 cents in Survey No. 471/11 als...
Tag this Judgment!Lalithamma and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker73
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1.The petitioners in these eight cases are members of a divided Marumakkathavam tarwad whose lands were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Fertiliser cum Petrochemical Complex, Ambalamedu for the purpose of the Cochin Division of the Fertilisers and Chemicals, Travancore Limited as per awards Nos. 29 and 30 dated 15-6-1971 Notices dated 28-6-1971 of the awards were sent to all the petitioners, requiring them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer to receive the compensation awarded to them on 8-7-1971. On the said date, all of them appeared either in person or through representatives, and received the amounts awarded to them It is stated that on the same day all of them prepared applications requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the cases under Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 to the appropriate court for adjudication of their claim for enhanced compensation. The applications ...
Tag this Judgment!J. and J. Dechane Distributors Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ9Ker
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the manufacture and production of herbo-mineral products, and having its registered office at the Residency Road, Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent is a medical representative of the petitioner for canvassing orders and promoting sales of its products in the State of Kerala, and in the District of South Kanara in the State of Mysore. The 3rd respondent was transferred to Bangalore by Ext. P1 dated 10-12-1968, with effect from 10-1-69. He refused to join at the said station, whereupon Ext. P2 notice dated 13-1-1969 was issued to him to show cause against suitable action. By Ext. P3 dated 21-1-1969, while informing him that there was no justification for his refusal to proceed to Bangalore, he was given one more chance to join at the place. Meanwhile, the District Labour Officer, Trivandrum, by notice dated 7-1-1969 informed the petitioner of his intention to commence conciliation proceedings in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of the CochIn Lighterage Corporation Vs. Paul Abrao
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ206Ker
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Nambiyar, J., allowing Original Petition No, 871 of 1969, The learned Judge allowed the petition in which the first prayer was for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other order or direction quashing Ext. P19 produced along with the original petition. The appeal is by the workmen of the Cochin Lighterage Corporation represented by the general secretary, Cochin Port Cargo Labour Union. It was at the instance of this union that the dispute was referred to the Tribunal that passed Ext. P 9 order. The dispute was numbered as CGIT-97 of 1964. The first issue referred for the adjudication of the Tribunal as is seen from Ext. P1 produced along with the original order of reference was the following:Whether the action of the employers, (1) Shri Paul Abrao of M/s. Paul Abrao and Sons, Cochin, and (2) the Cochin Lighterage Corporation, Cochin-1, in not providing work for the workmen specified in schedule II who were engaged in floa...
Tag this Judgment!P. T. Oommen Indian Cashew Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR676(Ker)
GEORGE VADAKKEL J., - This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, arises from penalty proceedings initiated by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Quilon, in respect of the assessment year 1959-60. The Additional Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in brief 'the Act'). This was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The imposition of penalty was upheld by the Tribunal, but the quantum of penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,500. The Tribunal refused to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises when the assessee applied under section 66 (1) of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed O. P. No. 2300 of 1968 under section 66 (2) of the Act. In compliance with the directions contained in the judgment of this court in that original petition the Tribunal was referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct ...
Tag this Judgment!United Hardwares Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR348(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.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 Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The relevant provisions of the partnership deed (annexure ' A ') are Clauses 7 and 15. They read as follows :' 7. The profits of the partnership business shall be shared and borne by the partners as under. Any loss sustained by partnership business, such losses are not binding on the 3rd partner. Partner No. 1 : P. Kunhayin 40%Partner No. 2 : K. Abdurahiman. 35%Partner No. 3 : M. Avaran Koya. 25% ............................. 15. In matters wherein no specific mention is made hereunder, the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, shall prevail with respect to the relationship between the partners and the firm and third parties.' 3. Chapter III of the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. K.H. Parameswara Bhat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR190(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Two questions have been referred to this court for decision by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, The questions read as follows: '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 35 are ab initio void 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was legally bound to communicate the original order of assessment recording the case ' 2. One Sri K.H. Parameswara Bhat, as the head of a Hindu undivided family, furnished returns of his agricultural income for the year 1963-64, under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, declaring a net income of Rs. 278, In response to a notice under Section 18(2) of the Act, he appearedbefore the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. He, however, did not produce any accounts or other evidence in support of the income returned. The Income-tax Officer estimated the income of the undivided...
Tag this Judgment!Kottayam Electricals Private Limited Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC535(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J.1. The assessee, a company has come up in revision challenging the finding of the sales tax authorities and of the Tribunal that he is guilty of the offence under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brief the Act) and the consequent levy of penalty under Section 10A of the Act. The assessee-company is a registered dealer in electrical goods. It also undertakes works contract such as wiring. During the assessment year 1967-68, the Sales Tax Officer, on verification, found that the company had used electrical goods purchased by it for execution of works contract. The purpose for which the goods were purchased as entered in the certificate of registration was 'resale'. The assessee-company purchased electrical goods worth Rs. 9,948.60 by issuing C forms and it was these goods that were used in the works contract undertaken by the company. Annexure A notice was therefore issued by the Sales Tax Officer proposing to take action under Section 10A of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Abraham Kochuthomman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR394(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the writing off by the assessee in his books of account of a sum of Rs. 2,50,829.73 due from his brother does not amount to a gift liable to be assessed under Section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. As is evident from the question the matter arises under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for short 'the Act'. The year of assessment was 1968-69. The answer to the question turns on the interpretation to be placed on Section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.3. The act of writing off of the debt due from the brother of the assessee has not been contended to be a transfer within the meaning of the definition of the term 'gift' and of 'transfer' in the Act. The contention was that the writing off must be deemed to be a gift by virtue of Section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, which is in these terms :'4. (c) Where there is a release, di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »