Kerala Court July 1975 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR803(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The questions referred in these three tax referred cases raise a point of law in regard to the interpretation of Sections 36and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short, 'the Act'. We shall extract the questions referred in the three cases :(1) I. T.R. C. No. 43 of 1974 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 3,48,671 towards liability for gratuity under the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970, for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' (2) I. T.R.C. No. 59 of 1974 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 11,415 being provision for gratuity payable under the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970?' (3) I. T. R. C. No. 68 of 1974 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
The Circle Inspector (Excise) Neyyattinkara and ors. Vs. K. Mukundan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker120
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. This appeal raises an important question regarding, mainly, the interpretation of Section 67 of the Abkari Act, 1077. Shortly stated the question is whether the Abkari Act which specifically empowers the authority concerned to accept a sum of money not exceeding two thousand rupees in lieu of cancellation or suspension of a licence or permit under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 26, or accept compensation for the offences under Sections 55, 56, 57, 58 or 63 also empowers the authority to order confiscation of a thing seized as liable to confiscation which thing did not belong to the licensee, permit holder or the person who committed any of the offences referred to in the section. The learned Judge in the judgment under appeal has taken the view that there is no such power.2. We are dealing with a very old statute and we have to bear in mind that the wording of the sections of the statute are not free from ambiguity. We have therefore to interpret these sections b...
Trivandrum Co-operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Reg ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker124
1. This appeal is by the Trivandrurn Co-operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short the Act. The appellant sought setting aside the two awards Exts. P-1 and P-2 passed by the first respondent purporting to act under Section 69 of the Act as well as the appellate decision by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum the second respondent (Ext. P-3). The award Ext. P-1 was passed on the complaint of respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that their service had been wrongly terminated by the appellant. The award Ext. P-2 related to the same matter. The appellant had claimed certain amounts from each of the respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the ground that they had falsified accounts and had committed misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. This claim of the appellant had been rejected. The appeal taken by the appellant before the second respondent the Co-operative Tribunal was dismissed by Ext. P-3.2. The learned Judge wh...
Vaniamkulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker1
ORDERN.D.P. Namboodiripad, J.1. The question arises under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (referred to as Act 11 of 1970). Two agriculturists filed an application as O. P. 188/1970 for a full settlement of their debts in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of Act 11 of 1970. The creditors were arrayed as respondents 1 to 24; and the 10th respondent is a co-operative society within the meaning of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 (referred to as Act 21/1969). The applicants debtors filed three interlocutory applications as I. A. Nos. 2459/70, 53/71, and 708/73 for prohibiting the concerned creditors from realising their debts from the petitioners. In this revision we are concerned with I. A. 708/1973 laid against the 10th respondent society. The 10th respondent society had already obtained an award against the petitioners who are members of that society. In execution of the award the society sold certain agricultural property belonging to the petitione...
Nataraja Gowder Vs. Municipal Council, Palghat.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)174
P. Subramonian Poti, J. - S. 100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 provides for the method of assessment of property tax. Sub-section (2), leaving out the proviso which may not be necessary for the purpose of this case, reads as follows :-'The annual value of buildings and lands which are occupied by, or adjacent and appurtenant to buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let form month to month or from year to year less a deduction in case of buildings of ten per cent of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone apart from their sites and the adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto.'Provision in the Municipalities Acts in force in the various States relating to assessment to property tax are more or less similarly worded and there has been longstanding controversy as to the scope and meaning of the term 'gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let.' On the...
Karichori Raman Nair Vs. Kodoth Krishnan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker22
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. Appellant was the second defendant in a suit for enforcement of a right of pre-emption, which has been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kasargod reversing its dismissal by the learned Munsiff, Kasargod.2. Plaintiff is the brother of the first defendant. By an agreement (muchalika) Ext. X-1 dated 2-10-1964 they and their two brothers and two sisters appointed P. W. 3, an Advocate who is also their relation, as arbitrator to partition the properties which they bad inherited from their rather. On 2-8-1965 P. W. 3 passed his award Ext. A-1 dividing the properties among the sharers and allotting the suit property, among other items, to the first defendant. The parties have accepted the partition and have taken their shares in terms of Exhibit A-1. Exhibit A-1 which has been registered but has not been filed in Court as required by the Arbitration Act, provides in paragraph 8 for a right of pre-emption in the following terms :'Every sharer will have a ...
P.M. George Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1975
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ14Ker
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The appellant was dismissed by the 2nd respondent-Bank under which he was an employee. On appeal preferred by him to the Appellate Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, that Authority by Ext. P1 order dated 5-9-1970 allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal of the appellant from service and directed as follows:The dismissal order dated 25-4-1968 served on the appellant by the respondent is vacated. The appellant will be reinstated in service within 30 days of this order, The appellant will also be paid a sum of Rs. 9,000 as compensation for the period of his unemployment from 16-2-1968 to the date of reinstatement. This will be paid within 30 days of this order. In case the appellant is not reinstated as ordered above, he will be paid a further sum of Rs. 6,000 within sixty days of this order.This order of the Appellate Authority was in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(4) of the Act which reads:18(4)--In directing the re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›