Kerala Court May 1978 Judgments
India Sea Foods (Regd.) Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT243(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge dismissing the writ petition to quash the orders of the Customs Officer directing confiscation of certain imported goods by the petitioners and levying a penalty for illegal import of the said goods. Ext. P-l is the order passed by the Collector of Customs. The same was confirmed on appeal by Ext. P-2 order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, and, on revision by Ext. P-4 order by the Government of India. The 1st writ-petitioner is the firm under the name and style, India Sea Foods. The 2nd writ-petitioner is its Managing Partner. In brief, the firm was granted an import licence dated 27-3-1965 to import Refrigeration Compressors except 15 to 150 TRC (Ton Refrigeration Capacity) and controls, for installing cold storage ice plant and blast freezers, and certain other items of goods. It placed an order with Frick Company, Waynesbore, Pennysylvania, U.S.A. through M/s. Bombay Amonia Private Ltd., for...
Tag this Judgment!Mammad Kunhi Vs. Rukhiya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1645
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The petitioner married the respondent Rukhiya in the year 1971 and they lived together thereafter as husband and wife. After living at the husband's place for some time, the wife left for her tarward house where her Karanavan one Moidu was also living. It appears that for some period during that time the petitioner also lived in that house with his wife. In or about 1974 there seems to have arisen some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the Karanavan of the respondent, According to the petitioner, that concerned the failure of the Karanavan to make available a house specifically put up for the petitioner and his wife partly, with funds advanced by the petitioner. It is further his case that due to the unpleasantness that arose on this account the petitioner could not continue to stay with his wife at the tarwad house and so he left it. It was then that a notice was issued to him on behalf of his wife claiming maintenance for her as well as a chil...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC273(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The point debated in these tax revision cases is whether the assessment to sales tax has to be made at 7 per cent under item 26 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or should be done under the more favourable rate of taxation to the asses-see under the multi-point scheme of taxation sanctioned by Section 5 of the Act.2. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, reversing the decisions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Officer, found in favour of the assessee that the assessment should be under Section 5 of the Act. The department has filed these tax revision cases.3. As stated by the Tribunal, the commodity in question, the assess-ability to tax of which arises for consideration is stay-wire manufactured by the assessee. As stated by the Tribunal, again, this is a some sort of stranded wire manufactured by the assessee which is also sold by them. It does not appear to have been disputed by the assessee that this wire is used...
Tag this Judgment!John Mathew Bros Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC140(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J1. This tax revision is preferred at the instance of the assessee against its assessment to sales tax for the year 1971-72. The nature of the transaction was described by the Sales Tax Officer as consisting of drawing, designing, block-making and printing letter-heads, advertisements and Christmas cards and the like. The accounts which were accepted by the authorities showed the details of the transaction as follows:Details of sales are as follows :Sale proceeds of bills and Christmas cards : Rs. 1,30,167.26Non-taxable turnover claimed : Rs. 13,005.25Receipts on advertisements: Rs. 130.00-----------------Rs. 1,43,302.51Inter-State sales: Rs. 466.65-----------------Rs. 1,43,769.16-----------------It claimed exemption in respect of Rs. 13,005.25 and in respect of Rs. 466.65 representing inter-State sales. The amount of Rs. 13,005, for which exemption was claimed, was said to represent the value of work and labour supplied ; and it was claimed that this was not a...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Menon Vs. Gourikutty Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker211
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following :The appellant who was the second defendant and his mother, who was the first defendant in a suit for redemption of a mortgage. Ext. PI dated 20-3-1090 had appealed to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trichur from the decree of the Munsiff, Trichur dated 17-2-1969 by which the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 10, 18 to 21, 26, 40, 41, 49 to 52 and 58 were allowed to redeem their shares in the suit property, I am not extracting the further provisions of the somewhat curious decree but might only note that as there was no prayer for partition in this suit and it was not known who would obtain shares in the property, the court provided that 'the various sharera will seek appropriate directions in the court passing the final decree in O. S. 87 of 1957, subject of course to such directions, if any, that may be found just and proper, in the circumstances of the case, by this Court while passing t...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pillai Krishna Pillai Vs. Ponnuswami Chettiar Subbalekshmi Am ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker236
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The short question inthis appeal by the judgment-debtor is whether the courts below were wrong in allowing the respondent-decree holder's' prayer for possession of property in execution of the decree for specific performance of a contract for sale, when the decree did not give any express relief of delivery of possession. The appellant had contended Chat as the plaint did not ask for such a relief and the decree had not granted it, the execution court had no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession and it could only refer the respondent to a fresh suit for possession on the strength of the sale-deed executed by the court in his favour in execution of the decree. This contention failed before the courts below.2. Counsel for the appellant argued that it was beyond the jurisdiction of theexecution court to deliver possession of the property in the absence of an enabling provision in the decree, even though the respondent has now become owner of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›