Kerala Court October 1980 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.P. Subbarama Sastrigal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR502(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. In these two sets of connected references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal '), under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (for short ' the Act '), in respect of 10 assessment years--1963-64 to 1972-73--concerning the same assessee at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kerala, the following question of law has been referred for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also under the relevant provisions of law, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that 60% of the face value of the suits filed account should be allowed as a deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee '2. The assessee--an HUF--has been carrying on the business of money-lending and also conducting chitties. For recovery of amounts due from the debtors, the assessee had to file a large number of suits in courts and the details concerning those suits are ent...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Sreedharan Vs. Pattieri Kumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker51
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the revision petitioner. The application filed by one of the two joint decree-holders to revive an earlier execution petition and to proceed with the execution has been allowed by the lower court by the order challenged in this revision petition. Two brothers obtained a simple money decree against the petitioner on 22-8-1966. Both the decree-holders jointly filed an application to execute the decree and applied for attachment of the assets of the judgment-debtor. The attachment was allowed, but a claim petition filed by a stranger was allowed and the attachment was raised. Consequently the decree-holders filed a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63, C. P. C. to set aside that claim order. That suit was allowed. The appeal filed by the claimants as A. S. 21 of 1973 was also dismissed on 31-10-1975. In the meanwhile the second decree-holder died. Thereafter the first decree-holder filed an execution petition on 29-10-1977 (numbered as E. P. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marikar (Motors) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Ker)93; [1981]129ITR1(Ker)
Bhaskaran, J.1. These references arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, disposing of I.T.A. Nos. 354 and 371 (Coch)/74-75, relate to the assessment year 1971-72. I.T.R. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1977 are under Section 256(1) and I.T.R. Nos. 34 and 35 of 1980 are under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a dealer in automobiles and automobile spare parts. Sale of motor lorry chassis on hire purchase system is one of the business activities carried on by the assessee. Under that system the assessee enters into an agreement with the customer who makes an initial deposit, and makes payment of the balance consideration in instalments over a number of months. When all the instalments are paid off, the customer gets an option for buying the vehicle. On his exercising that option the sale becomes completed and the property passes to him. Though the taxable event occurs only when the last instalment is paid and the sale is completed ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Prasadan Vs. Bhargavi Sarojini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ826
ORDERU. Lakshminarayana Bhat, J.1. The revision petitioner was directed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punalur in M.C. No. 12 of 1977 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- p. m. to his son (2nd respond-dent herein) born to him by his first wife (1st respondent herein). Claim made by 1st respondent was negatived. The respondents filed Crl. R. P. No. 101/78 before the Sessions Court, Quilon, seeking maintenance for the first respondent and seeking enhancement of maintenance for the 2nd respondent. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of maintenance passed in favour of the 2nd respondent, reversed the order of the learned Magistrate denying maintenance to the first respondent and directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- p. m. to her also. Liability to pay maintenance to the first respondent and the quantum awarded to her are challenged before me.2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V. Thiruvenkata Reddiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR689(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has referred to this court underSection 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the following questions of law as arising out of its order dated 16th March, 1978, in W.T.A. No. 108(Coch)/76-77 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the share in the fixed deposit under Section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1973-74? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to any exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1973-74. The assessee is a minor and she was assessed to wealth-tax through her father as guardian. The minor, assessee, is a beneficiary in a private trust called 'Seematti Tru...
Tag this Judgment!The Tahsildar Kottarakara and ors. Vs. N. Vishwanathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker161
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala jointly along with the Tehsildar Kottarakara against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court allowing O. P. No. 2502 of 1976 filed by the 1st respondent herein and quashing the demand notice issued to the petitioner as per Ext. P-1 under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 17,816.92 being the arrears of abkari dues payable by him in respect of the period 1971-73.2. The petitioner had stood surety for the 3rd respondent who was the successful bidder in respect of toddy shop No. 17 in Karunagapally range for the two years period from 1st April, 1971 to 31st March, 1973. The bid amount payable by the contractor for the said period was Rs. 90,500/-. The petitioner had executed a surety bond dated 23-4-1971 before the Assistant Excise Commissioner. Quilon undertaking to make good to the State Government the full amount payable by thebidder by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1362
ORDERU. Lakshminarayana Bhat, J.1. The unsuccessful appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 7/78 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. are the revision petitioners herein. The Judl. 2nd Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha in C.C. 631 of 1977 convicted them for an offence under Section 426 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each. They were acquitted of the charge under Section 291 I.P.C.2. The de facto complainant examined as P. W. 1 in the trial court filed a complaint before that Court on 10-10-1977 alleging that on the morning of 6-10-1977 the revision petitioners-accused, who are owners in possession of the paddy field lying adjoining the paddy field of P.W. 1 and at a higher level, cut open three sluices in the intervening bund and let. out excess water from their field to the field of P.W. 1 and thereby inundated it and prevented him from carrying on agricultural work, as a result of which he s...
Tag this Judgment!Upperi Janaki Vs. Balakrishnan Nambiyar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker52
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The 2nd respondent in I. A. No. 432 of 1976 in E. P. No. 34 of 1976 in O. S. No. 470 of 1969 of the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba is the appellant The suit is for recovery of possession of property covered by a renewed marupat dated 27-5-1937 executed by one Elichi alias Chemarathi in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest. The document is a composite deed; a portion of the property 13 1/2 X 24 six feet koles in extent was demised in Kuzhakanom and the right to take the usufructs of the properly alone was given in regard to the remaining extent. The total extent of the property is said to be 36 1/2 X 58 six feet koles. The first respondent in I. A. No. 432 of 1976 is the only defendant in the suit. He is the son of the executant of the marupat, namely Elichi alias Chemarathi. The property involved in the suit in respect of which recovery was sought is only the extent excluding the portion which was admittedly demised in kuzhi-kanom. The defendant-...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Sreedharan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ119
ORDERU. Lakshminarayana Bhat, J.1. The four counter-petitioners in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1778 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 2nd Class, Trinjalakuda (arising from Crime No. 47 of 1979 of Vellikulangara Police Station) challenge before me the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing them to appear before the investigating Circle Inspector of Police, Crime Detachment, Trichur between 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. for 4 days from 5-6-1979.2. The facts are in a short compass and are not disputed. The revision petitioners, who are alleged culprits in Crime No. 47 of 1979 registered under Sections 302, 341' and 34 of the Indian Penal Code of Vellikulangara Police Station, obtained an order for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. from this Court. However, subsequently they surrendered before the Court and obtained bails.3. Thereafter, the investigator filed M. P. No. 1778 of 1979 seeking custody of these persons. In the application filed by the Circ...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. John Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ121
ORDER1. The petitioner before us is holding the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and he has brought this writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto calling upon respondents 2 and 3 to show cause under what authority they are functioning as Additional Public Prosecutors. There is a further prayer for calling for the records leading up to the orders Exts. P2 and P3 passed by the State Government appointing respondents 2 and 3 as Additional Public Prosecutors at Parur and Ernakulam respectively for the periods mentioned therein and to quash those two orders on the ground that those orders have been passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act 45 of 1978). The contention of the petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called the 'Code' - as amended by Act 45 of 1978, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »