Kerala Court November 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.
Kanhayalal Baid Vs. Rajkumar Agarval
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ824
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The 3rd accused in C.C. No. 63 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Cochin, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. (for short the Code) to quash the proceedings.2. The respondent herein filed a private complaint which was taken on file as C.C. No. 63 of 1980 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cochin. Four persons were shown as accused in the complaint. The 1st accused is the proprietor of Western Carriers, which is described as a common carrier in this petition. The Head Office is at Calcutta. The 2nd accused is the Manager of the Calcutta Office of the Carrier. The 3rd accused is the Manager of the Cochin Office of the Carrier and the 4th accused is the New Delhi Manager of the Carrier. The allegations in the complaint can be summarised as follows : The complainant entrusted certain goods shown in the schedule (13 consignments, two of which were entrusted on 13-9-1977 and the rest on 10-1-1978) at Cochin to the 3rd accuse...
Sigma Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.V. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker43
ORDERG. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The respondent in a Rent Control proceeding is the revision petitioner. An application for eviction was filed by a minor represented by his next friend (his mother) and after contest that was allowed by the Rent Control Court The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. That Authority set aside the order and all the findings entered by the Rent Controller and remanded the case on the sole ground that an application filed by a minor represented by a next friend is not a valid application. This was reversed on revision. The Revisional Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority after holding that the application filed by a minor represent-ed by a next friend is maintainable. The Appellate Authority was directed to take back the appeal on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law but subject to the finding of the revisional court. This is challenged in this revision petition.2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that as Or...
Eralottu Chathu Vs. Patingattillath Gopalan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ691
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 33 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Badagara. He filed a private complaint against the present 1st respondent Gopalan (2nd accused) and one Krishnan (1st accused) alleging an offence punishable under Section 415 I.P.C. It appears Krishnan is now working in Sultanats of Oman, a Gulf country. The 1st respondent was served with summons and appeared in court. Krishnan could not be served. The complainant ultimately filed a petition before the Magistrate praying that summons may be sent through the Indian Embassy in the Sultanats of Oman. The petition was dismissed on the ground that no Rules have been framed by the State Government as contemplated by Section 62 of the Cr. P.C. The correctness and propriety of this order is now challenged.2. Chapter VI of the Cr. P.C. 1973, (for short the Code) deals with processes to compel appearance. Sections 61 - 69 appear under the heading 'A-Summons'. Se...
The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nemmara Vs. K.S. Sarojini and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker44
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nemmara is the petitioner in this writ petition where he challenges the validity of the order of the District Judge, Palghat in I. A. No. 419 of 1979 in appeal filed under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act (for short 'the Act'). A case of illicit transport of some timber logs in a taxi car was detected by the Beat guards of the Thiruvazhiyad Beat on 14-10-1978 at 2 a. m. near a culvert at Talipadam road side. As the persons who were in the car did not produce any transport permit at the time of the detection of the offence when they were asked to produce the same it was reasonably suspected that the vehicle concerned was being used for the commission of an offence in respect of a forest produce. Consequently the vehicle was seized by the Beat guards along with the timber logs kept inside. After investigation and enquiry into the matter as empowered under the Act the petitioner passed an order dated 20-2-1979, a copy o...
Jacob George Vs. Agrl. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR392(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The only contention urged before me against the impugned orders, Exs. P-1, P-2, P-5 and P-8, is that those orders were made outside the period of limitation prescribed under Section 41(4) of the Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950. The impugned orders have been made under the Revenue Recovery Act on the basis of a certificate issued under Section 41(3) of the Agrl. I.T. Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 41 says that no proceeding for recovery of any sum due under the Act shall be commenced after the expiry of three years from the latest day fixed for payment in the notice of demand served under Section 30. The notice of demand was served subsequent to the assessment order dated December 10, 1963, for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The certificate under Sub-section (3) of Section 41 was issued on June 2, 1964. Accordingly, the certificate was issued well within the time mentioned under Sub-section (4) of Section 41. There is no dispute about these dates. However, the petitioner's co...
Thilakan and ors. Vs. Sukumaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1162
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in S. T. No. 1/79 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, seeking to revise an order passed by the Magistrate on 25-6-79 issuing summons to the petitioners or in the alternative, to quash the complaint.2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the court below against the petitioners alleging that they committed an offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. The Magistrate after taking cognizance on examining the complainant proceeded to conduct an enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for that purpose to a particular date on which date, although the complainant was present, as the document necessary for the purpose of the case had not been received from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the case was adjourned directing that the witness will appear, On that day, the complainant was absent and on his application the case was adiourn...
K. Shanmukhan Vs. G. Sarojini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ830
U.L. Bhat, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Quilon in Criminal R. P. No. 16 of 1979 allowing maintenance at the rate of 40/- per mensem to the respondent herein as payable by the revision-petitioner. The respondent had filed M. C. 89/78 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Quilon seeking maintenance and the same was dismissed accepting the contentions raised by the revision petitioner.2. The parties were married on 9-11-1966 and a child was born in the marriage. In an earlier proceeding M. C. 82/70, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15/-per month was ordered to the child, to be subsequently increased to Rs. 30/-per month. The marriage between the spouses was dissolved in 1973 under Ext. D-l document. The divorce is accepted as legal by both sides. The learned Magistrate disallowed maintenance to the divorcee-wife on the ground that she was living separately by mutual consent and that at the time of divorce a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was pro...
Murukesan Vs. District Collector, Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker47
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. In this writ petition the challenge is directed against Ext. P-3 demand prior to attachment of land dated 30-4-1979 under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act issued by the authorised officer (Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Alwaye) for recovery of Rs. 1145 being the arrears of court-fees alleged to be due from the petitioner, and Ext. P-5 order dated 29-10-1979 passed by the respondent, the District Collector, Ernakulam, whereby he disposed of Ext. P-4 objection submitted by the petitioner to Ext. P-3 demand notice, permitting the petitioner to remit the arrears at the rate of Rs. 50 per month.2. The petitioner had instituted O. S. No. 282 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, against the driver of the scooter K. L. D. 7644 in forma pauperis for recovery of compensation in the sum of Rs. 11,650 for the injuries sustained and the medical expenses incurred by him as a result of the accident involving the said scooter on 4-1-1973. U...
P.M. Kunhimuhammed and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: [1985]152ITR691(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred to this court, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question of law :'Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose the penalty in question under Section 271(1)(c) after the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, vesting the power to impose the penalty on the assessing authority with effect from April 1, 1976 ?''2. The assessee is a firm having business in purchase and sale of vegetables. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. While making the assessment, the ITO found that there were several remittances made by the assessee for purchases of vegetables, but those purchases were not reflected in the assessee's books of account. Based thereon, he made an addition of Rs. 79,801 as business income and a further addition of Rs. 50,000 under other sources. On appeal by the assessee to the AAC, the additions under the t...
Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer-i and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR218(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The petitioner-company is an assessee under the Kerala Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950. The petitioner challenges exts. P-3, P-4 and P-6 which are the orders of respondents 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in each of the petitions. By ext. P-6, the 3rd respondent, the Commr. of Agrl. I.T., affirmed the findings of the officers below, that the petitioner was not entitled to claim deduction of interest paid by it in the previous year in respect of a non-possessory mortgage on the lands in question. The 3rd respondent rejected the contention on the ground that the deductions allowable under Section 5 (f) of the Kerala Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950, could be recognised only where the mortgage was created for the purpose of deriving agricultural income. He found that the sum borrowed on the mortgage in the present case was, in fact, spent for business purposes. Accordingly, he held that the deduction under Section 5 (f) was not available to the petitioner.2. Section 5 reads : ' Computation of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »