Kerala Court January 1980 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.
P. Sreenivasan Vs. Yoosuf Sagar Abdulla and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas485(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner, a director and also a manager of Yoosuf Sagar Abdulla & Sons (P.) Ltd., seeks a declaration under Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated by the inspector appointed by the Central Govt. Necessary directions to the Central Govt. are also sought for. 2. The facts stated and the allegations made in the petition briefly are these. A foreign national, Yoosuf Sagar Abdulla, was doing import and export business at Calicut. On the eve of his return to Kuwait in 1954, he formed the company for taking over that business. Yoosuf Sagar Abdullah is no more, but 51 shares still continue to be in his name, apparently for want of sanction from the competent authority for transferring them to others. Only 161 shares have been issued, and the other shares are now being held by Yakkob Yoosuf Sagar (son of the founder through his Indian wife), Ahammed Yoosuf Sagar (son through a Kuwait wife), K. V. Kunhammed, Mrs. F...
E.K. Hajee Mohammed Meera Sahib and Sons Vs. the Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC134(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibit P-l order of the 1st respondent dated 30th March, 1977, and exhibit P-3 order of the 2nd respondent dated 9th August, 1977. Exhibit P-l was made under Rule 31 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 ('the Rules'), calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty in terms of Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act'). Exhibit P-l was affirmed by exhibit P-3.2. According to the petitioner, no penalty for non-payment of tax as per the provisional assessment can be imposed subsequent to the completion of the final assessment and, in any case, an order imposing penalty has to be preceded by a show cause notice.3. For the year 1973-74, a pre-assessment notice dated 20th September, 1973, was served on the petitioner. This was challenged in 0. P. No. 3496 of 1973 and an interim order of stay of collection of tax was obtained. The 0. P. was dismissed by judgment dated 14th February, 1975. A provisional order of ...
Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker151
Narendran, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The facts are stark and simple. The 3rd defendant, the proprietor of a business concern at Dindigul, entered into a contract with the plaintiff-company on 17-1-1970 for the purchase of 39 motors. On 16-1-1970 the 2nd defendant, Manager of the 1st defendant-Bank at Nattam, executed a bank guarantee (Ext. Al) to the plaintiff. As per Ext. Al, the 2nd defendant agreed on behalf of the 1st defendant-Bank that if the plaintiff supplied motors and other electrical appliances to the 3rd defendant on credit, the Bank will be responsible to the plaintiff up to Rs. 15,000/- of the amounts, if any, found due from the 3rd defendant. Ext. Al was a continuing guarantee for a period of one year. As per the contract, on 17-1-1970 the plaintiff supplied to the 3rd defendant 39 motors. The bill amount of 22 motors was duly paid. But the bill for the remaining 17 motors was not paid. The plaintiff made a demand to the 2nd defendant and an amount of Rs. 3000...
George Paul Puthuran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Ker)269; [1980]126ITR168(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. Pursuant to the order passed by this court in O.P. No. 5651 of 1975 under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has stated a case referring the following questions for decision by this court:'1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, should not the interest amount obtained by the assessee be spread over for the entire period commencing from the date of dispossession to that of the decree passed by the court ? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in including the sum of Rs. 1,21,554, the interest on the enhanced compensation, as the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. During the year 1961, a total extent of 1 acre 83 cents belonging to the assessee was acquired under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the Cochin Shipyard Project. Possession of a portion of the property was...
K.N. Vidhyadharan Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker212
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioner participated in the auction held cm 19-12-1979 of the right to collect the residual tree growth (fire-wood and timber) from Oil Palm Plantation Coupe No. VIII B after making the necessary earnest deposit. His bid was the highest. He also complied with the condition that a bidder whose bid was knocked down should deposit Rs. 10,000/- or one-third of the bid amount by making the payment as aforesaid on 19-12-1975 itself. His bid was confirmed by the 4th respondent, Conservator of Forests, on 3-1-1976, and he was informed of that on 7-1-1976. Pursuant to the provisions governing the sale in the sale notice, the petitioner sought for extension of time for the payment of the balance amount up to 21-3-1976. According to the petitioner time was granted up to 21-3-1976 as sought for, but according to respondents time was extended only up to 20-2-1976. On 23-2-1976 there was a forest-fire in Coupe No. VIII B mentioned above and according to the petition...
C.K. Damodaran and anr. Vs. the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker227
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The two writ petitioners in O. P. Mo. 2392 of 1976 are the appellants before us. They figured as defendants in an arbitration case instituted by the second respondent - the Liquidator, Puthupally Coir Vyavasaya Co-operative Society Limited before the Special Officer for Coir, Trivandrum, who had been empowered to exercise the powersof a Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act and to function as the arbitrator under Section 69 of the said Act. Subsequently, the case was transferred from the file of the Special Officer for Coir, Trivandrum to that of the 3rd respondent -- the Assistant District Industries Officer (Coir) Kayamkulam who had also been invested with the powers of a Registrar under Section 69 of the Act. The arbitrator passed an award in the case on 7-11-1974. A notice of the award was issued to the petitioners under Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules on 20-12-1974 and it was actually served on the petitioners on 30-12-1974. Th...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: [1981]131ITR154(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. In these four reference cases, the following common question of law has been referred to this court by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called ' the Tribunal '), Additional Bench, Kozhikode, under Section 60 of the Kerala Agrl. I.T. Act (for short, ' the Act') as arising out of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in four appeals filed before it by the same assessee (respondent herein):' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the legal expenses incurred for defending the title to the properties of the appellant-company are allowable deductions in computing the agricultural income under the Agricultural Income-tax Act '2. The assessment years concerned are 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The respondent, M/s. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., is an assessee on the file of the IAC of Agrl. I.T. (Special), Calicut. While computing the income of the assessee for the aforementioned four ass...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Chullikkan Parameswara Bha ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Ker)378; [1980]125ITR28(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The Kerala Agricultural income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has referred to this court under Section 60 of the Kerala Agrl. I.T. Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') the following questions ;'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that when an assessment made against an 'individual' under Section 18(4) has been reopened under Section 19 of the Act, the proceedings are pending against the 'individual' only and not against the Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta or ejaman ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment completed against the karta or ejaman of a Hindu undivided family is vitiated, if it is finalised after reopening an order of assessment under Section 19 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act against him as an individual ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstan...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Metherukunju Moosakutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker182
Subramonian Poti, J.1. This appeal is by the Union of India against the decree of the court below granting injunction to the plaintiffs in the suit restraining the defendants, the State of Kerala as well as the Union of India from taking steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act against the plaint schedule items for recovery of amounts claimed as due to the second defendant, Union of India. There are two plaintiffs in the suit, the second plaintiff being the wife of the first plaintiff. They claim to be the owners of the plaint schedule items, item No. 2 being the building situated on item No. 1 which is land of an extent of 22 cents. The plaint items were purchased by the plaintiffs undera sale deed, Ext. A1, dated 10-4-1967, executed by one Janaki Amma and her 5 children. That the suit property originally belonged to one Velayudhan Pillai is not in dispute. It was inherited by his widow Janaki Amma and the 5 children, who jointly executed Ext. Al sale deed. At the time the sale was...
E.i. Narayanan and ors. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker115
ORDER20. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is orally asked for. We do not think that any substantial question of law of general importance arises, on which, in our opinion, a pronouncement by the Supreme Court is necessary. We decline to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »