Kerala Court June 1977 Judgments
Ammu Brahmani and ors. Vs. Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1979Ker130
Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit from which this second appeal arises. The properties scheduled to the plaint in the suit belonged to the family of the husband of first plaintiff. There was an earlier suit for partition of the assets of this family -- O. S. 134/1114 (M. E.) of the District Court, Trichur. During the pendency of the suit a Receiver appointed by the Court was in management of the properties involved in the litigation. The properties, now the subject matter of the present suit had been leased out by the Receiver to one Velappan on an aggregate rent of 57 paras of paddy and one bunch of bananas per year. During the pendency of the partition suit, first plaintiff's husband had died and the plaintiffs in the present action had been impleaded as his legal heirs in the partition suit. By the decree in the partition suit, which was finally confirmed in appeal on 27-10-1958, the properties had been set apart to these persons. 2. After the...
Tag this Judgment!The Sales Tax Officer and anr. Vs. C.E. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC323(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. Exhibit P1 is the order of the Sales Tax Officer, Nedumangad, assessing the petitioner to sales tax due under the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 28 of 1969). The order records that on verification of accounts it was found that the petitioner had effected inter-State sales to the tune of Rs. 1,27,752.09; that on verification a turnover of Rs. 50,536.02 alone was covered by valid C forms, Rs. 5,185.32 was supported by defective C forms and Rs. 72,030.75 was not covered by any C forms at all. On this basis, the assessment proceedings were completed. On appeal, the appellate authority stated as follows:-3. ...Central sales tax paid by outside dealers and received by the appellant has been remitted and the amount of Central sales tax demanded in the sales bill but not received has not been remitted. Only with regard to the payment of the latter amount, objection has been raised at the time of hearing, namely, that the appellant was not liable to p...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayana Bhatta Vs. Ganapathi Bhatta and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)9
ORDERG. Balgangadharan Nair, J. - Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents defendants who are his father and two brothers from trespassing upon the suit property or disturbing his possession, claiming that he was in possession by virtue of a partition deed of November 1, 1969. The respondents resisted the suit setting up the plea that the partition deed of 1969 was not binding and that they were all in joint possession pursuant to an unregistered agreement of September 5, 1967, in which the petitioner had admitted such possession that this would be disclosed by the returns and objections which he had filed before the Agricultural Income Tax Authorities. In the attempt to prove this plea the 2nd defendant-1st respondent made an application I.A. No. 861 of 1976 to summon the concerned Agricultural Income Tax Officer, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural and Sales Tax, to cause the production of File No. P. 37 of 1968-69 fr...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Pulpally Devaswom Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC350(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The assessee is the same in all the three tax revision cases the question of law arising for our consideration is also the same. In T.R.C. Nos. 14 and 15 relating to the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively, the assessee challenges a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following the said order, a separate order was passed by the Tribunal in respect of the year 1970-71 and this order is challenged in T.R.C. No. 13 of 1975. We propose to deal with these cases together and dispose of the same by a common judgment.2. The only point arising for our consideration is whether the peti-tioner-devaswom is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(viii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act).3. The devaswom owned extensive private forests. On the strength of permits issued to it by the District Collector, Kozhikode, the devaswom felled trees which had grown spontaneously in its forests. These trees were dressed by the de...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. P. Achuthan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ274Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appeal is by the State against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court allowing a writ petition and quashing the two impugned orders, Exts. P3 and P4. The writ petitioner was a police constable who was directed to be removed from service for two charges framed against him. Broadly stated, the two charges were, disobedience to instructions issued by the superior authorities; and second, absence without permission for a period of 14 hours. These were enquired into and found to have been established; and by Ext. P 3 order, the writ petitioner was directed to be removed from service. An appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was dismissed by Ext P 4 order. The learned Judge quashed Exts.P3 and P 4 on the ground that the misconduct was while the petitioner was on deputation under the Central Service and, therefore, the Commandant of the Malabar Special Police who took the action against the petitioner was not competent to do so, in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar Vs. S. Noordeen and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ker11
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner in E.A.57/75 who was also one of the respondents in E.A. 1061/74 in E.P. 91/66 in O.S. 38/60 on the file of the Quilon Sub Court is the revision petitioner. His application to set aside the court sale of items Nos. 1 to 7 in the proclamation schedule filed in execution of the decree in O.S. 38/60 was allowed by the Sub Court, Quilon, but dismissed in appeal by the District Court. While dismissing the appeal the District Judge observed that the application to set aside the sale was misconceived in thesense the petitioner who claims to be a purchaser under an earlier charged decree and who is in actual possession of the property can assert his rights in the property and also his right to remain in possession of it when he is sought to be dispossessed in execution of the present decree and the exact nature of his rights and the question whether these rights can prevail against the decree-holder are matters which are to be properly determined a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mohammed Ali Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR892(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. One Paramboor Unnian died on April 24, 1969. His estate devolved under the Muhammadan law on the petitioner and 11 other legal representatives. As no account of the estate was delivered under Section 53 or Section 56 of the Estate Duty Act a best of judgment assessment was made under Section 58, Clause (4), determining the estate duty payable as Rs. 20,755.50. Exhibit P-l, dated September 29, 1972, is a copy of the said order. The eleven other legal representatives, excluding the petitioner, challenged exhibit P-1 in O. P. No. 4994 of 197. filed on November 7, 1972, on the ground that the assessment order was passed without notice to all the legal representatives. Exhibit P-2 is a copy of the judgment in that original petition, where proceedings for recovery were challenged. It was observed:'.....it is not necessary to go into the merits of this petition since it is said that reassessment proceedings under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act has been commenced. A...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC278(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These revision cases raise the question whether the right of cross-examination is an essential ingredient of the 'reasonable opportunity' to be afforded to an assessee in order to prove the correctness and completeness of his return or before completing a best of judgment assessment under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The two tax revision cases by the same petitioner relate to different periods, T. R C. No. 45 of 1975 to the assessment year 1965-66 and T. R. C. No. 46 of 1975 to the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee-petitioner was a forest coupe contractor and was also running a rice mill. We are not concerned in these tax revision cases with the assessment of turnover derived as coupe contractor. The petitioner had not filed any return for the years in question. His case before the assessing authority was that the mill was idle during the first half of the assessment year 1965-66, that thereafter the control of the mill had ...
Tag this Judgment!M. K. Thomas Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Ker)267
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. - These revision cases raise the question whether the right of cross-examination is an essential ingredient of the reasonable opportunity to be afforded to an assessee in order to prove the correctness and completeness of his return or before completing a best of judgment assessment under S. 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963. The two tax revision cases by the same petitioner relate to different periods, T.R.C. No. 45 of 1975 to the assessment year 1965-66, and T.R%.C. 46 of 1975 to the assessment year 1966-67. The Assessee-petitioner was a forest Coupe Contractor and was also running a rice mill. We are not concerned in these tax revision cases with the assessment of turnover derived as coupe contractor. The petitioner had not filed any return for the years in question. His case before the Assessing Authority was that the mill was idle during the first half of the assessment year 1965-66, that thereafter the control of the mill had been given to one ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Balakrishnan Nair and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ker30
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioners are the Secretary, Accountant, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk of the 4th respondent Society and they impugn here the classification of Banking Co-operative Societies with working capital between Rs. 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs into Urban Banks coming under the Banking Regulation Act and Credit Societies for the purpose of regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants as contained in Appendix III to the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969,2. Section 80 (1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 enables the Government to classify the societies governed by the Act according to their type and financial position. Sub-section (3) therein enables the Government to make rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of the Officers and servants of different classes of Societies specified in Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of the section enabl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »