Kerala Court February 1975 Judgments
Kumari T. Shameem and ors. Vs. Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker131
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions applied for admission to the First M.B. B. S. Course for the year 1974-75. But they did not get admission. The petitioners who belong to communities which are socially and educationally backward, question the constitutionality of the restriction imposed in G. O. P. 208/66/Edn. dated 2-5-1966 (Ext. P-1 in O. P. No. 4873 of 19741 which insists that only applicants who are members of families whose aggregate annual income is below Rs. 6,000/- will be entitled to admission to the seats reserved for students belonging to the backward classes. The petitioners have got an alternate contention that in any case, the income ceiling of Rs. 6,000/- fixed in Ext. P-1 G. O. is highly arbitrary and hence not valid and sustainable.2. The petitioner in O. P. No. 4873 of 1974 belongs to the Muslim community. She secured 349 marks and is entitled to 5 marks more on the basis of her sport certificate. Though she secured more marks than ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1975
Reported in: [1980]121ITR237(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question to the High Court for its opinion :'Whether the payment of Rs. 40,840 in cash made up of Rs. 4,000 paid by the appellant to M/s. K.N.G. Brothers, Ernakulam, and Rs. 36,840 paid to M/s. Neelakanta Iyer, Vaikom, for purchase of textiles is 'expenditure' liable to be disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. For the assessment year 1970-71, M/s. P. R. Textiles, Thodupuzha, a registered firm for the purpose of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 12,835. While examining the accounts of the assessee, the ITO found that the assessee had paid in cash to M/s. K.N.G. Brothers, Ernakulam, Rs. 4,000 on June 6, 1969, and to M/s. Neelakanta Iyer, Vaikom, Rs. 36,840 on various dates in cash towards the sale consideration for the purchase of textile goods. According to the ITO the above sums represented 'expenditure' falling withi...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Parameswaran Nair Vs. P. Madhavan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1306
ORDERP. Narayana Pillai, J.1. Revision sought for here is of an order passed under Section 137 (3) of the old Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 - Section 138(2) of the new Code of 1973 - making absolute a conditional order passed under the first clause of Section 133(1) - Section 133(1)(a) of the new Code. In the conditional order after stating that he was satisfied that the revision petitioner had by raising the level of his property in S. No. 78/1 in Nemmara village and by constructing a compound wall on that property obstructed the free flow of rain water from the panchayat road in S. No. 76 in the same village through his property and thereby allowed water to stagnate on the road making it impossible for the pedestrians to use the road and thus caused nuisance to the public in using the road, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Palghat, directed the revision petitioner to remove the obstruction caused to the free flow of rainwater from the road through his land in S. No. 78/1.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Cherian Vs. Kochuvareed and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker197
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendant from executing the decree in O. S. No. 133 of 1120 on the file of the Munsiff of Irinjalakuda. The facts of the case are as follows:--One Ithappanose examined as P. W. 4 in the case was the original owner of the property. In 1106 he mortgaged the property to Chalakudy Bank. The defendant was the then manager of the Bank. Ithapanose and his two sons partitioned the plaint property. In spite of the partition, the patta of the property continued in the name of Ithapanose. For arrears of revenue the plaint schedule property was sold under the Cochin Revenue Recovery Act. It was purchased by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the revenue sale was invalid in law and the defendant never got possession as per the sale sannad. Plaintiff obtained an assignment of the property from Ithappanose ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›