Kerala Court September 1974 Judgments
K. Madusudanan Namboodiri Vs. Unni Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ751
S.K. Kader, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal, filed by the complainant in a private complaint, C.C. No. 252 of 1972,on the file of the court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Quilandi.2. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that they on July 30, 1972 at about 8 p.m. criminally trespassed into the house belonging to him and committed theft of vessels and other articles worth about Rs. 6,000/-. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the appearance of the accused, the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they were P.W. 1 the complainant and P.W. 2 who was said to be present in the house at the time of the incident.3. When examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the accused denied the prosecution case.4. The learned Magistrate on being satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for...
Tag this Judgment!Kaderkunhi Beary and ors. Vs. Kadre Beary and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Ker92
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Defendants 2 to 9 are the appellants. The Second Appeal is from a final decree in a suit for partition and redemption of plaintiff's 3/56 share. In passing the final decree the appellants' claim for protection under Section 4-A (1) (a) and (b) read with Section 13 of Act of 1964 was rejected by the trial court as well as the first appellate court on the sole ground that in S. A. No. 1044 of 1968 filed against the preliminary decree the appellants' attempt to raise this ground was rejected by this Court by the following order:--'As the finding of the Munsiff regarding the nature of Ext. A-1 was not challenged at the time of the argument before the lower appellate court, I do not find any reason to allow the additional grounds to be raised in the second appeal. Dismissed'. Ext. A1 referred to in this order is the mortgage sought to be redeemed. The appellants had pleaded in the trial court that the said document is a lease and that they have fixity of tenure. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.S. and North Malabar Public Conveyanc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR36(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short, the Act, and the following question has been referred for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the absence of any material to show that the assessee had received anything more than Rs. 80,000, being the consideration mentioned in the sale deed, there was no scope for the application of Section 52(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?.'2. The assessee is a private limited company. It owned two non-residential buildings. The buildings were sold by the company to one Smt. N. K. Vimala, one of its shareholders for Rs. 80,000. The Income-tax Officer during the course of the assessment for the year 1969-70, found that the fair market value of the buildings sold by the assessee was much higher than the value stated as consideration in the deed of transfer. The full m...
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Rowther Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker109
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. On August 11, 1967, the appellant who was then 73, was waiting at the state transport bus stand, Changannacherry at abut 9,45 a. m. A bus K. L. T. 4606 belonging to the first respondent-corporation with the second respondent at the wheels hit the plaintiff and knocked him down, when the bus was being reversed. The left back wheel crushed the tight toes of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had to be treated in the medical college hospital, Kottayam and later in the John Memorial Hospital, Changannacherry. The bigger three toes of his right foot had to be amputated. Alleging that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the second respondent, employee-driver of the first respondent, in reversing the bus without reasonable care and caution and that that accident had resulted in serious injuries to him, he being deprived permanently of his three toes, a suit for recovery of damages caused was filed by the appellant against the respondents. It was...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Parthakumaran Vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Kozhiko ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker54
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The question raised in this writ appeal is whether the application for reference under Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, filed by the petitioner-appellant was beyond the time provided by the Act. A learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the order cf the Special Land Acquisition Officer, holding that it was. For the appellant strong reliance was plated on two Division Bench rulings of this Court in Special Tahsilrlar, Kozhikode v. Karthiyayani Amma, 1971 Ker LT 847 and Malathi Amma v. The Land Acquisition Deputy Collector. 1973 Ker LT 221. The Division Bench composed of two of us before which the matter came on in the first instance, doubted the correctness of the rulings and felt that they required re-consideration for which purpose, this Full Bench has been, constituted. Notice was issued to the Advocate-General in view of the importance of the question, raised; and the learned Government Pleader appeared at the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Joseph Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker103
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. and V.P. Gopalan Nambivar, J. 1. The question raised in this petition is whether the provisions regarding 'kudikidappu' and the right of a 'Kudikidappukaran' to purchase the 'kudikidappu' will apply to the land inside the municipality. 2. The petitioner rented out a small building to the third respondent. The fourth respondent, the daughter of the third respondent, and his son-in-law the 5th respondent, are residing in that building. It is alleged that the 6th and 7th respondents trespassed on the property and put up two huts. All five of them have filed applications for purchase of the 'kudikidappu.' 3. This petition has been taken on the basis of the decision in Sankaran Nambissan v. Sarvothama Rao, 1972 Ker LT 891. The contention is that the Kcrala Land Reforms Act, 1964 will apply only to agricultural lands and will not therefore apply to the buildings inside the municipality. The very definition of a 'kudikidappukaran' indicates thai the Act would apply to a...
Tag this Judgment!Scaria Joseph Vs. Mathai George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker24
Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. In a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note, the only contesting defendant -- the first defendant in the action -- raised the plea that he is entitled to the benefits of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act -- Act 11 of 1970 -- (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial court -- Munshiffs court -- held that though the 1st defendant is an agriculturist entitled as such to the benefits of the Act, as the plaintiff has claimed interest only at the rate of 6%, and -as the defendant has committed default in payment of three consecutive instalments, he cannot avail of these benefits. A decree was passed in the suit making the 1st defendant also personally liable for a sum of Rs. 3609.85 with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation with proportionate costs.2. The 1st defendant has taken up the matter in appeal to the District Court. In the grounds enumerated in the memorandum of appeal, it is stated that the judg...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore-cochIn Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR24(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has stated the following question of law and referred the same for our opinion, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 53,49,374 was part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery to the assessee under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for purposes of development rebate as claimed by the assessee '2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, and incorporated in 1951. It had an old 40 tonne plant for the purpose. A new 60 tonne caustic soda plant was acquired and installed by the company and commenced production from November 15, 1967. For the accounting year ending March 31, 1968 (assessment year 1968-69), the Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on the full cost of the new machinery and plant as claimed by the assessee. But regarding development rebate, he noted tha...
Tag this Judgment!thevaril Ranee Sidhan and anr. Vs. the Special Tahsildar for Land Acqu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker27
George Vadakkel, J. 1. A plot of land measuring 1 acre 48 cents was acquired by the State under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act). The whole compensation amount was deposited as required by Section 33 (2) of the Act in the lower court, and a reference was issued under Section 32 thereof. The appellants in the first instance filed a statement before the lower court claiming compensation in respect of 16 cents of the acquired land. Subsequently, by an additional statement filed by them on 13-6-1968 and received by the lower court they claimed compensation for another 8 cents of land also. In respect of these 8 cents of land the 13th respondent had already claimed compensation. The lower court declined to decide the appellants' claim relating to the 8 cents of land on merits for the reason that they had not advanced such a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer, and also on the ground that such a dispute has not been referred to the court. This appeal is agai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Travancore Agency
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR149(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The order of reference to the Full Bench made by the Chief, Justice and George Vadakkel J. in the above I.T.Rs., which we shall set out in full, is as follows :These referred cases arise from a composite order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which dealt with I.T.As. Nos. 387 and 388 (Cochin) of 1970-71. The assessee is the same. The question that was considered by the Tribunal was whether the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the assessee in relation to the assessment for the three years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 was justified or not. The Tribunal held that there was no justification for imposing penalty for the two years 1965-66 and 1966-67. But, it upheld the imposition of penalty for the year 1967-68. No question is raised regarding the penalty for the year 1968.2. These references relate to the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 and the questions referred are:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »