Kerala Court April 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.
Puthen Veettil Nolliyodan Devoki Amma and ors. Vs. Puthen Veettil Noll ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker230
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 37 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry are the appellants in this appeal. They instituted the suit for partition and recovery of possession of 10/14, shares in the plaint B schedule proper-ties on the basis that they belonged to an undivided tavazhy consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants contended that items Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaint B schedule alone belonged to the tavazhy and are available for partition and that the remaining items included in the plaint B schedule are the separate acquisitions and that the tavazhy has no right, title or interest in the rest of the properties included in the plaint B schedule. It was also contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs are barred by res judicata from putting forward the plea that plaint items Nos. 3 to 15 are tavazhy properties by reason of the decision rendered by the Mun-siff's Court Koothuparamba in O. S. No. 149 of 1961, ...
T.P. Khalid Vs. K.P. Pathummakutty Umma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker239
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. Pathummakutty Umma let out her building to Kunhammad. According to her, Kunhammad sublet that building to Khalid and Usman without her consent. So, Pathummakkutty Umma lost no time in filing O. P. No. 160 of 1976 for eviction under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, before the Rent Control Court, Palghat. Kunhammad contested while the sub-tenants did not contest. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction and granted one month's time to put the landlord in possession of the building. Kunhammad was making arrangements for filing an appeal against the order for eviction passed on 15-7-1977. But Khalid and Usman surrendered possession of the building to Pathummakutty Umma on 8-8-1977. Usman filed E. A. No. 940 of 1977 and Khalid filed E. A. No. 941 of 1977, before the Principal Munsiff, Palghat praying that the surrender of the building to the landlord may be recorded. Kunhammad raised various objections. The learned M...
integrated Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC103(Ker)
V. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner who is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the Central Act' for short), has been registered as a dealer under Section 7 of the Central Act in respect of Coca-Cola, Fanta Orange and Fanta Soda. Exhibit A is a copy of the certificate of registration. This entitled the petitioner to purchase these articles for resale at concessional rate of sales tax after issuing C forms prescribed by the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, Ernakulam, found that the petitioner had purchased bottle coolers for Rs. 1,61,767.40 by issuing C forms during the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. As the registration certificate did not include bottle coolers, the Assistant Commissioner thought that the issue of C forms declaring that bottle coolers were covered by the registration certificate constituted firima facie a violation of Section 10(b) of the Central Act. He, therefore, issued a ...
Chadayam Makki Nandanan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1195
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. These two petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seek to quash the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manantoddy, in C.M.P. No. 129 of 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate. The. facts giving rise to these two petitions can be stated as follows: The petitioners are accused in O. R. No. 2 of 1980 of Kannoth Range in Wynad Forest Division, pending before the Magistrate. Originally, the petitioners Avere taken into custody by the Meenchanda Police at Calicut under Section 41 read with Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, and Crime No. 11 of 1980 was registered by the Meenchanda Police. sub-sequently the petitioners were handed over to the Range Forest Officer, Wynad Forest Division, who registered O. W. No. 2/1980. The petitioners were produced before the Magistrate. The petitioners moved applications for bail. The bail applications were finally posted to 15-2-1980. On 15-2-1...
United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamalakshi and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ408Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the fourth respondent under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The applicant--first respondent here--is the widow of one deceased Gurunathan who was working as a cleaner in lorry No. KLQ. 1084. On 26th February, 1974 while Gurunathan was working in the lorry the lorry met with an accident and as a result of it Gurunathan sustained a fatal injury. Though he was immediately rushed to the Medical College Hospital he succumbed to the injuries in a few minutes of his reaching the hospital. The widow filed an application claiming compensation for the death of Gurunathan and she impleaded the second respondent herein alone as the respondent alleging that the lorry belonged to the second respondent and the deceased was employed by him as a cleaner. The second respondent disclaimed all liability to pay compensation. He contended that the deceased Gurunathan was never employed in his lorry as a cleaner. Long prior to the accident, on 7-...
Sree Hanuman Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Ker)276; [1980]125ITR1(Ker)
Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as directed by this court at the instance of the assessee, the following questions of law :' (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 1,87,870 constituted income taxable under the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,87,870 arose from business ' 2. The assessee is a firm in Alleppey and is engaged in the business of exporting hill produce like pepper. The assessment year concerned is 1969-70. On April 18, 1966, and May 7, 1966, the assessee entered into two separate contracts with a party in Russia to sell 50 tons of pepper each, at the rate of Rs. 4,170 per ton. The payment was to be made in Indian rupee out of an irrevocable letter of credit established by the Russian buyer with the bank for foreign trade of the U.S.S.R. for the total value of the contracts. 95% of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›