Kerala Court April 1976 Judgments
Raghavan Nair Vs. Narayana Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker11
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. A suit O. S. 100 of 1966 filed by the respondent was pending on 1-1-1970, for recovery of possession of a' property outstanding with the revision petitioner under a document of 1956. After the amendment of Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act I of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969 the petitioner claimed tenancy right under Section 7-B of, the amended Act. The claim was allowed as per decree dated 24-7-1970. The respondents thereafter filed an application for resumption of the land under Sections 17 and 22 of the Act as O. A. 13 of 1973 claiming that they were small holders. The petitioner raised the plea of limitation and contended that the petition should have been filed under Section 18 of the Act within a period of one year from the commencement of Act I of 1964. The Land Tribunal before whom the petition was filed upheld the plea of limitation and dismissed the petition for resumption. In appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding and held that there was no ...
Tag this Judgment!F.A.C.T. Employees' Association Vs. F.A.C.T. Limited and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ182Ker
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Exhibit PI award is challenged in these two original petitions. An industrial dispute arose between Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogamandal (hereinafter referred to as the company) and its workmen represented by eight unions. The Government of Kerala referred the dispute by Ext. RI dated 17-6-1972, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after called the 'Act'), to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut. The issues referred are: (I) Production bonus. (2) Annual bonus for 1970-71. (3) Staffing of IV stage plants and service departments. (4) Reorganisation of chemical control and instrumentation departments. (5) Promotion policy. (6) Review of agreement relating to personal assistants and stenographers. (6) Deployment of surplus personnel. (8) Common pool of helpers. (9) Disciplinary action against workmen suspended in connection with strike. The award of the Tribunal dated 31-7-1975 was received by the Government on 29-8-1975. It wa...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Kurup Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker13
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J.1. Can a child in utero be said to be a minor child? When a woman conceives could it be said that even before the delivery the unborn in the womb is a minor child of such mother? This interesting question arises in this case in the following circumstances:2. Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides, in Chapter III for the determination of the ceiling area permitted to be held by a person and surrender of land in excess over the ceiling area. The ceiling is determined with reference to a family, an adult unmarried person, or any other person. The family as defined in the Act is an artificial unit consisting of a husband, wife and unmarried minor children. The properties of the members of the family are treated as that of the family for the purpose of determining the ceiling area. If any of the members of the family owns or holds land or a share in land which is joint property, that is treated as the land of the family for the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR708(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred to this court the following question: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding- (i) that the word 'income' obtaining in Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should refer to a positive figure only and not to a loss; (ii) that the total income computation circumscribes the quantum of concealment in penalty proceedings ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of export of marine products like prawns, fish, etc. For the assessment year 1968-69, the accounting period in respect of which was the year ending December 31, 1967, the assessee-firm had filed a return in which it had declared a net loss of Rs. 3,29,304. Certain investments made by the partn...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Law) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC210(Ker)
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This tax revision case is filed by the revenue against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the following questions are raised for consideration :(1) Having found that the assessment was finalised properly, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that the assessee is to be given an opportunity to produce the C forms before the assessing officer ?(2) Has the Appellate Tribunal jurisdiction to direct the assessing authority to accept the C forms filed, after the final assessment and/or to condone the delay in filing the C forms Is the procedure followed by the Tribunal legal, in view of Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and the decision of this court reported in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Abdul Wasigh and Bros., [1962] 13 S.T.C. 295.?2. To appreciate the questions certain facts have to be stated. The assessment proceedings related to the year 1969-70 under ...
Tag this Judgment!Janatha Contract Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR627(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in treating Rs. 1,14,071- (Rs. 2,17,546--Rs. 1,03,475) which represented the amounts withheld by the engineering department as per the terms of contract between the assessee and the department, as income which accrued to the assessee and in including the said sum in the total income of the assessee for the account year ended 31st March, 1964?'2. The assessment year was 1964-65 and the corresponding accounting period was that which ended on March 31, 1964. 3. The assessee is a firm of contractors carrying on contract work consisting of levelling sites, constructing buildings, etc., at Idikki and construction of roads, buildings, etc., for the Medical College at Kottayam. For the accounting period that ended on March 31, 1964, the assessee h...
Tag this Judgment!Cheranellur Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker76
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The petitioner in this original petition is a co-operative society represented by its President. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext. P-1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordering an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the petitioner-society under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short the Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that Ex. P-1 proceedings are vitiated for the reason that R. 66 (1) (c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short the Rules, is not complied with.2. The election to the Board of Management took place on 23-9-1973 and the present Board assumed office on 7-10-1973. As per the bye-laws of the society, two members were to be nominated by the Registrar and accordingly two members of the society who were defaulters and hence disqualified to be nominated were, as a matter of fact, nominated. This was c...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Menon Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ker159
Narayana Pillai, J.1. Application of certain provisions of Section 82 of the Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, has to be considered in these two Revision Petitions. That section, so far as is relevant here, reads :--'82. (1) The ceiling area of land shall be .....(b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more, but not more than five members, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent; .....(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, all the lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family .....Explanation I :-- For the purpose of this section, where a person has two or more legally wedded wives living, the husband, one of the wives named by him for the purpose and their unmarried minor children shall be deemed to be one family; and the other wife or each of the other wives and her unmarried minor c...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ83
Kader, J.1. Vasudevan, 23, the first accused in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1975 in the Court of Sessions, Trichur, who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, is the appellant. He was tried along with five other accused on a charge that he and the others constituted an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to murder Kesavan and that in prosecution of the said common object, he committed the murder of Kesavan by cutting him with a chopper (M.O.I.). The other accused were acquitted of all the charges and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The occurrence was at about 1 P.M. on October 15, 1974. The scene of offence is on the Trichur-Mulayam Road near the junction where the road leading to 'Laksham Veedu' branches-off and about 41 metres to the south of the shop of kuttan situated on the western side of the Trichur-Mulayam Road.3. The first accused is the elder brother ...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Vs. Pacific Procon Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker24
George Vadakkel, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Arbitrators were competent to award interest for the period prior to the date of the award. The lower Court held that they were not, and, therefore, modified the award accordingly. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant in his claim submitted before the arbitrators claimed interest'as damages and also according to the custom and usage'. The respondent contended before them that there was 'no customor trade practice or equity' justifying theclaim for interest The appellant in his reply statement justified the claim also onground of demand made in writing for payment. Parties joined issue thereon, and thearbitrators raised issue No. iii as regards thesustainability of the claim and the quantumof interest, if the claim was sustainable.Without specifically answering the 1st partof that issue relating to sustainability of theclaim, and also without giving any reasons,they held that the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »