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.
A. Sethumadhavan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Ker)376; [1980]122ITR587(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. Exhibit P-4 dated August 5, 1977, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is impugned by the petitioner. The Commissioner rejected the petitioner's claim for interest under section 214 of the Act in respect of the third instalment of advance tax paid by the petitioner on the ground that the instalment was paid subsequent to the due date.2. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner was required to pay advance tax in terms of Section 210 in three equal instalments at the rate of Rs. 6,600 on the due dates mentioned under section 211(1)(ii), viz., 15th September, 15th December and 15th March. The first two instalments were paid by the petitioner on the due dates. On March 13, 1976, which was two days prior to the due date for the payment of the third instalment, the petitioner forwarded an estimate of his income together with a demand draft for Rs. 55,760 being the balance advance tax payable by him on the basi...
M.V. George Vs. S.M.R. Traders and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker100
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. Order 17,Rule 2 and Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil P. C. as they stand after the Civil P. C, Amendment Act, 104 of 1976 are materially different from the corresponding provisions as they stood prior to the amendment. Order 17, Rule3 contemplated a judgment on the merits. But a judgment does not become a judgment on the merits falling under Order 17, Rule 3 merely because the judgment purports to be on the merits. The court may have, in the judgment discussed the issues in the ones, considered the evidence and decided the case on the merits. But nevertheless it will not be a disposal under Order 17, Rule 3 if the prerequisite for application of the rule is not satisfied. The party to whom time has been granted must be in default. If the case comes up not after grant of such time to the party, Order 17. Rule 3 will have no application The disposal will then be under Order 17, Rule 2 though it purports to be one on the merits. In such a case a defendant notwithsta...
E.S.i.C. Vs. New India Maritime Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ232Ker
Subratnonian Poti, J.1. A question of some importance concerning the application of the employees' State Insurance Act arises for decision here. That concerns the coverage of the employees of an establishment notified under Section 1(5) and since the question may arise quite often it would be better to deal with this question in a little detail though possibly for the purpose of this case that may not be called for.2. The scheme of the Employees State Insurance Act is to make it applicable in the first instance to all factories other than seasonal factories. A factory is by itself an establishment. But establishments other than factories are brought within the scope of coverage under the Act only by resort by the appropriate Government of Section 1(5) of the Act. The provisions of the Act may be extended by the appropriate Government to any establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. In Kerala Section 1(5) was invoked by the State Govern...
Santhamma Radhamany Amma Vs. Kunju Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ247
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioner who is the de facto complainant in S.T. No. 228/77 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adore (Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Adore), a case instituted on police report, praying that the order of acquittal passed therein may be quashed on the grounds that (1) the acquittal of the accused in the case on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce witnesses is illegal as it was the duty of the court to summon and examine witnesses, whether the prosecution produced witnesses or not; and (2) the only order that the Magistrate could have passed in the circumstances was to stop the proceedings under Section 258, Cr. P.C. without passing judgment and release the accused which release in effect amounted to a discharge.2. At the time when the petition was taken up for hearing the first respondent and his advocate were absent. Both the grounds urged by the learned advoc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR353(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for our determination :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer is not justified in withdrawing the development rebate granted to the assessee '2. The assessee, Malayalam Plantations Ltd., Cochin, is a limited company, owning a number of estates in Kerala. The company is registered in London and the shareholders and the board of directors are in London. That is why it is known as the sterling company. As it was receiving income from plantations and from other activities in India, it is assessable in India as well, in respect of such profits. The assessment years relevant for the purposes of these references are 1965-66 and 1966-67. The company had installed machineries in the course of the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1...
Kochu Velu Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ220Ker
Subramonian Poti, J.1. Interesting questions are raised in this appeal which is at the instance of a person who claimed the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but who was denied the benefit under the Act by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under appeal. The appellant was one engaged in the avocation of climbing coconut trees to pluck the nuts. The opposite party who is the first respondent in the appeal owns a small coconut garden and the applicant who is the appellant here was engaged by the opposite party for climbing the coconut trees from time to time to crop the nuts from the trees periodically. On 16-6-1972 while the applicant was at his work of climbing cocoanut trees in the cocoanut garden belonging to the opposite party to pluck the nuts he fell down resulting in fracture of the left hand. He is said to have been hospitalised. Later he underwent Ayurvedic treatment. The applicant is said to have become a permanent invalid as a result of the acci...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Gool C. Dalal and PerIn C. Dalal.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Ker)102
Gopalan Nambiyar C.J. - At the instance of the Revenue ITAT has sent up its statement of the case and referred the following question of law for our opinion, viz :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessees cannot be assessed as Association of Persons.'2. Mr. Peston Cooverjee Dalal was a Parsi who had settled down in Kerala. He was possessed of several properties by way of rubber estates and other. He executed a will on 30-9-1954. By the said will be made certain bequests to persons and institutions named in the Will. With regard to residue he gave the following direction :All the rest and residue of my property both movable and immovable of whatsoever kind including my residential house known as Marine Villa with all lands and buildings thereon, premises where the Parsi Priest resides, Valiapara and other estates and all my trade assets, claim and demands and goodwill and other property of any nature whatsoever...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Ker)100; [1980]122ITR557(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam. The following question of law has been referred for our determination, namely:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses on the maintenance of the buildings owned by the company and given rent-free to the smployees cannot be considered for the purpose of disallowance under section 40(a)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company running a tea estate. To six of its employees, the assessee provided rent-free accommodation. The buildings thus provided are owned by the assessee. The assessee also incurred certain expenses on the maintenance and upkeep of those buildings. These have been exhibited in the form of a chart in the statement of the case as follows:'NameEducationallowanceValueof rent-free accommodation consideredfor personal income-tax purposesUpkeepof buildingsTotal1.2.3.4.5.Rs....