Kerala Court December 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.
Raghavan Nair Vs. Velayudhan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker35
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether a defendant in a suit for injunction can move the Court to auction the right to take yield from the plaint schedule properties pending suit. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff got the properties as per a will executed by his father on 13-10-1977. The father died on 11-12-1978 and, according to the plaintiff, thereafter he is in exclusive possession of the properties and is cultivating the same. The defendant who is none other than his brother, attempted to trespass into the properties. So, the suit for injunction was filed. On the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction the trial court ordered to maintain the status quo. The defendant contested the suit. When the suit came up for ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Chemical Mfg. Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Ker)44; [1982]133ITR818(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. In these two connected references made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has referred to this court the following question of law as arising out of the common order dated December 31, 1977, passed by it in ITA No. 232 (Coch)/76-77 and ITA No. 173 (Coch)/77-78:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the managing directors of the company are not employees of the company and so the provisions of Section 40A(5) will not apply?'2. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessment years concerned are 1972-73 and 1973-74. During those two years, the assessee-company had two managing directors, namely, Sri K. Narayanaswamy and Sri S. Srinivasan. Each of these managing directors have received remuneration from the co...
H.S. Shivakantappa Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: [1982]134ITR481(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. In this reference made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, under Section 60 of the Agrl. I.T. Act (hereinafter called ' the Act'), the question of law referred to this court is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fee paid to the auditors has been correctly disallowed in computing the agricultural income of the appellant for the assessment year 1972-73 ?.'2. The claim for deduction put forward by the assessee is under Section 5(j) of the Act which provides for deduction of any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income. The short question is whether the amounts expended by the assessee by way of charges paid to the auditors for the preparation of the assessee's return of income under ...
V.P. Antony Vs. Licensing Authority and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker116
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioner applied for and obtained a licence to drive light vehicles on 3-4-1978. Within three years thereof, to be precise on 18-4-1980, he submitted Ext. P-5 application to obtain a licence to drive a transport vehicle which admittedly is a heavy motor vehicle falling both within Sub-sections (9) and (9A) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As per Ext. P-6 endorsement the petitioner was told that since he has not completed three years after obtaining licence to drive light motor vehicles Ext. P-5 application is returned. The application also was returned to the petitioner. This was for the reason that proviso to Rule 10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 provides that no authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle other than a car or tractor shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned that he has had previous experience in driving light or medium motor vehicle or both together for a period of 3 yea...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. B ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC37(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The State of Kerala represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, is the revision petitioner in these two connected revision petitions filed against the common order dated 28th February, 1979, passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, dismissing Tribunal Appeals Nos. 959 and 960 of 1977 filed before it by the State.2. The assessee is M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Ltd., and the second appeals disposed of by the Tribunal arose out of the assessments to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act), made against the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Two questions were raised before the Tribunal by the State in these second appeals. The first question was whether the excise duty paid to the Central excise department on petroleum products purchased by the assessee was liable to be included in the taxable turno...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haji P. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Ker)39; [1981]132ITR623(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the order passed by this court in O.P. No. 2674 of 1976, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called ' the Tribunal '), has referred the following questions of law to this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for short, ' the Act ', as arising out of the Tribunal's order dated June 26, 1975, in I.T.A. No. 215 (Coch)/74-75 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in finding that the department has no case for levy of penalty for concealment and that a case cannot be made out for a penalty under the ' main provisions' of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not the said finding perverse and unreasonable 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in finding that there is no fraud or wilful neglect or gross...
Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. P.S.B. Paul ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR809(Ker)
Bhaskaran, J.1. For the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 the asses-see, who is a cardamom planter, was assessed to agricultural income-tax by the assessing authority as per his orders dated November 2, 1967, November 20, 1968, and March 1, 1974, respectively. On examining the records of assessment, the Dy. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. found that the assessments were completed by the assessing authority estimating the income from ten acres of middle aged cardamom plantation, out of the total extent of 43*04 acres, at 10 Kgs. per acre for 1967-68 and at 12 Kgs. per acre for 1968-69 and 1969-70 ; this was found to have been done on the basis of the report of a spot inspection conducted on August 1, 1965. The Dy. Commr. took the view that the yield ought not to have been estimated on the basis of thatinspection report for the period relevant to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 as it could have been related, only to the assessment of the accounting years 1964-65 and 1965-66. He also observ...
C. Janardhanan Nair Vs. A. Mohammadkunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ528
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Changanacherry in. S. T. No. 58 of 1978 wherein the present respondent was charged under Section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) read with Section 7(1)(n) and Item A.05.09 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules).2. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector Changanacherry Circle laid the complaint against the respondent under the above provisions o the Act and Rules alleging that on 6-12-1977 at about 1.30 p.m. he went to the provision shop belonging to the respondent near Pathanad junction of Kangazha Panchayat and after satisfying the formalities required by law, purchased a sample of cumin seeds from the respondent and dealt with the sample in accordance with the provisions of law. One of the samples sent to the Public Analyst brought forth the report, Ext. P-5, in which the Public...
Kanan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: [1986]161ITR489(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee--Kanan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd.--the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called ''the Tribunal'), has referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short, 'the Act', the following two questions of law as arising out of the order dated March 22, 1979, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 483 (Coch) of 1977-78 :' (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the asses-see should have deducted the tax relating to Rs. 8,112 paid to Mr. McLean by the assessee being the passage money for the journey of his two children who were studying and residing in U.K. ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer on December 21, 1976, under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was in time and not barred by limitation?' 2. The assessee, a company owning tea estates, had employed Mr. A. J. McLean as manager of one of the es...
M. Rajagopal and ors. Vs. K.S. Imam Ali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker36
Khalid, J.1. Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are the appellants in this appeal. Original 1st defendant died pending suit. 4th defendant is his mother, 5th defendant his wife and defendants 6 and 7 his minor children. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed to recover amounts due to the plaintiff on 5 promissory notes. The plaintiff's case was that the amounts as per the promissory notes were taken for the purpose of a partnership firm, K. M. S. Bus Service by name run by defendants 1, 2 and 3 of which the 1st defendant was the Managing Partner. Four promissory notes were executed by the 1st defendant and the 5th promissory note by defendants 1 and 2. Defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and in any case the partnership firm cannot be made liable for the promissory note amounts. The trial court held that the plea of limitation was not available to the defendants since there was an acknowledgment of the liability as per the promissory notes by defendants 1, 2 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »