Kerala Court February 1980 Judgments
P.S. Anthappan Vs. the District Manager, Telephones
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker201
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Telephone No. 34953 installed at House No. XXVIII/2H2, Palarivattom, Cochin-25 was disconnected on 1-10-1977 and the petitioner who was the subscriber of that telephone was told by a letter dated 15/17-10-1977 15/17-10-1977 , copy Ext. P-3, that the telephone had been closed for misuse on 1-10-1977. The petitioner thereupon made a representation to the District Manager, Telephones, seeking immediate action in the matter of verification of certain facts stated and reconnecting the telephone. After waiting for sometime to get orders thereon, he moved this Court for quashing Ext. P-3 and also for a mandamus to direct the respondent, the District Manager, Telephones, to re-connect the telephone. 2. The right of any subscriber to continue to enjoy the benefit of the telephone of which he is a subscriber, is quite valuable. Despite the fact that it is the exclusive privilege of the Central Government to establish, maintain and work telegraphs, there is no powe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Ghosal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Ker)197; [1980]125ITR744(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. 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 question : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and for the purpose of Section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 'salary' includes ' bonus ' ' 2. The relevant facts as can be gathered from the statement of the case may be briefly stated thus I The assessee, an individual, is an employee of M/s. Harrisons & Crossfield Ltd. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1975-76 for which the relevant accounting period is the year ended March 31, 1975. During the said period the assessee had received Rs. 38,110 by way of salary, dearness allowance and bonus. Out of the said amount, Rs, 4,410 represented the bonus received by the assessee from his employer. The assessee had also received from the employer during the accounting period an ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Castlerock Fisheries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Ker)200; [1980]126ITR382(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the order passed by this court in O.P. Nos. 5316 of 1976, 5416 of 1976 and 494 of 1976, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has stated a case and referred the following question to this court, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that in respect of the freezing and storage plant let out by the assessee, the assessee can claim development rebate under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in sea foods with its head office in Cochin and branch at Bombay. The relevant assessment years concerned in these references are 1969-70 and 1970-71, for which the relative periods of account are the years that ended on March 31, 1969, and March ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: [1980]126ITR522(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. Pursuant to a direction issued by this court as per the judgment rendered in O.P. No. 3774 of 1976, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench)--hereinafter called ' the Tribunal '--has stated a case and referred the following questions to this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer, under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 was not valid ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of which he reopened the assessment, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the reopening of the assessment by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not on information from the Tribunal's order dated November 30, 1970, is perverse and u...
Tag this Judgment!Manuel T. Paikeday Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker222
V. Khalid, J.1. This appeal has beenlisted before me on the objection regarding court-fee paid. The court-fee paid in the court below was on title for Rs. 24,000/-. While court-fee paid in appeal is on Rs. 8,342.75.2. Heard counsel on both sides and the Government Pleader. The appellant's counsel submits that this being a Division Bench appeal a single Judge has no jurisdiction to hear this matter, because a decision on court-fee amounts to a final decision which can be done only by a Division Bench-The respondent's counsel submits that the court-fee question is only an interlocutory matter and a single Judge can hear it. Section 3 of the High Courts Act enumerates the powers of a single Judge. Section 3(5) is the relevant provision, which reads:'3. Powers of single Judge. -- The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters may be exercised by a single Judge, provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may adjourn it for being heard and determi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kunhahammad Haji Vs. the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Pazhassi Project, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker205
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The petitioner's application (Ext. P-3), purportedly filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was rejected by the impugned order (Ext. P-5) on the ground that it was presented out of time. According to the petitioner he has had no notice of the various steps taken by the respondent for the acquisition of the land. It is stated that no notice under either Rule 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 ('the Rules') or Section 9 (2) and (3) or Section 12 of the Act was received by him. He filed the application under Section 20 (Ext. P-3, dated 22-6-1977) as soon as he heard of the award when the Sub-Court, Tellicherry sent him a notice in L. A. R. No. 92/77. It is accordingly submitted by the petitioner that Ext. P-3 was filed within the time mentioned under Section 20 (2) (b). 2. In the counter-affidavit dated 7-2-1978 it has been stated by the respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer, that notice contemplated under Ss....
Tag this Judgment!Padmavathi Vs. Kalu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker173
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. This is an application to condone the delay in filing the second appeal. The second appeal was filed on 27-11-1979. The application to condone delay is seen filed on 6-12-1979. The delay is sought to be explained by the original affidavit filed on 6-12-1979 and the additional affidavit filed on 8-2-1980. In the additional affidavit what is stated is that the petitioner was bed-ridden from 15-7-1978 and that she did not know about the dismissal of the appeal on 25-7-1976, that she did not get any communication from her advocate and it was only when sent her son on 8-11-1979, that she knew about the dismissal of the second appeal. The application for copy was made on 9-11-1979 and the copy was obtained on 22-11-1979.2. In the additional affidavit what is stated is that her son who has been helping her is not a person competent enough to look after the affairs of the Court and that in connection with the suit she was depending upon the vakil's clerk.3. No affidavit fr...
Tag this Judgment!Plakkad Estate (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Ker)203; [1980]125ITR564(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioners in these cases question the constitutional validity of Section 4(2) of the Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950 (hereinafter, ' the Act '). They are sought to be assessed under that Act also in respect of the agricultural income derived from their lands, according to them, in the possession and enjoyment of their mortgagees under possessory mortgages. The said provision is impugned on the grounds that it is beyond the legislative competence of the. State Legislature, and is also arbitrary, confiscatory, irrational:and discriminatory.2. Section 4(2) of the Act reads;' 4. Total agricultural income--(1)......... (2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), agricultural income derived from any land situated within the State, which is in the possession of the mortgagee thereof, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 23, be deemed to be agricultural income received by the mortgagor : Provided that where the agricultural income-tax charged on such agricultural ...
Tag this Judgment!Government of India and ors. Vs. A.S. Bava
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS495D; 1980(6)ELT625(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The appellants in this appeal are the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), Government of India, New Delhi, the Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin. The appeal is against the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court allowing O.P. No. 2007 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein - hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner-quashing the order Ext. P 11 passed by the Government of India in its capacity as the revisional authority under Section 36 of trie Central Excises and Salt Act (Act 1 of 1944)-herein- after called the Act-and directing the Government of India to consider afresh 'the question of duty payable by the petitioner' and also the quantum of such duty so payable under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in accordance with law.2. The writ petitioner is a firm carrying on business in tobacco at Cochin on the strength of lic...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Tahsildar Vs. Smt. Velammal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR587(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The State of Kerala, jointly along with the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Udumpanchola, and the village officer, Chathurangapara, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court allowing O.P. No. 4099 of 1975 and quashing the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the respondent herein as per Exs. P-1, P-3 and P-4, for realisation of arrears of agricultural income-tax payable by one Veeranna Thevar for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.2. An extent of 6 acres 4 cents comprised in Sy. No. 62/2 and 4 of Chathurangapara Village is property registered in the name of the writ petitioner (respondent herein). The said property had been leased out by the writ petitioner in favour of two persons by name, Thanka Pandian and Nakaraja Nadar, as per a registered lease deed dated 18th June, 1966. The right of those lessees devolved on one Veeranna Thevar by virtue of a transaction of assignment. Veeranna ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »