Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1981Ker15
ORDERG. Viswanath Iyer, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent orders passed by the subordinate courts dismissing the petitioner's petition to adjudicate the first respondent an insolvent. The application was filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency Act 2 of 1956. The act of insolvency alleged is a transfer of the A Schedule property by the first respondent debtor to the second respondent on 26-12-1974. The petitioner is a creditor of the first respondent under a kuri transaction. The first respondent defaulted the payment of future subscriptions and instalments due from 1-9-1974 was in arrears. The intention of the first respondent in executing the sale deed is stated to be to defeat and delay the realisation of the debt due to the petitioner. Passing of consideration is also denied and the transaction is stated to be one in fraud of creditors and without any legal effect. Originally the petition was filed before the Munsiff's Court on 13-3-1975. As that cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1980Ker236
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The decree-holder is the revision petitioner. A decree for money was obtained by the petitioner's predecessor on 16-3-1956. The property of the judgment-debtor was sold in court-auction on 21-2-1968. On 6-3-1968 the petitioner produced the necessary amount for the stamp duty leviable on the purchase certificate. On 16-3-1968 the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. to set aside the same. That application was dismissed on 4-11-1969 and the sale was confirmed. The judgment-debtor applied on 24-11-1969 to restore that application, but that application also was dismissed on 9-3-1970. Before this the judgment-debtor had filed an appeal against the order dated 1-11-1969 as A. Section 6 of 1970. The appellate court allowed that appeal, set aside the order of the lower court and sent back the application filed under Order XXI, Rule 90 for fresh consideration and disposal. On remand that application was posted for consideration and the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1980Ker196
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioner, Smt. Annamma Philip, is the widow of one Sri T. V. George, who died on 25-5-1975 at the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, of injuries sustained by him at 5 p.m. on 22-5-1975 as a result of the accident involving stage carriage bus No. KLZ 1065, known as Kissan Roadways, owned and managed by the 2nd respondent at Perumkulam on the route Palamadu-Edakkara. The first respondent is the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (now Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode), the 3rd respondent the Kerala State Insurance Department, Trivandrum, the 4th respondent the New India Assurance Company, Calicut, and the 5th respondent the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. M. A. C. No. 21 of 1975 on the file of the 1st respondent is an application for compensation filed by the petitioner under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). Subsequently having come to know that a form for application for compensation has been prescribed under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1981Ker20
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the reliefs sought, the issues involved and the questions of law raised arc practically identical. In the course of the judgment, wherever each 'of the petitioners has to be referred to separately, the petitioner in O. P. No. 326 of 1980-E would be referred to as Sri Laksh-manan Vaidyan, and the petitioner in O. P. No. 422 of 1980-A as Sri Ramakrishnan for the sake of convenience.2. It is averred in the writ petition by Sri Lakshmanan Vaidyan that by virtue of the power conferred under Section 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, (Act 15 of 1950) (the Act) as amended by' Act 20 of 1974, three Hindu Ministers out of six Ministers who constituted the Council of Ministers of the State of Kerafa had nominated him to be one of the members of the Travancore Devaswom Board on 27-11-1979. It is also averred therein that one Smt. Sarasw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1981]132ITR875(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. This writ petition comes before us on a reference by Justice T. Kochu Thommen. The order of reference reads :' Two important questions arise in this petition. (1) Can the Agricultural Income-tax Officer validly refuse to make a refund in accordance with the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner when the latter's order was not challenged within the statutory period and, hence, became final, for the reason that a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in a different case invalidated the reasoning of the appellate authority (2) Whether Section 50 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act is applicable to a claim for refund as per the order of the appellate authority ? 2. In view of the general importance of these questions, I am of the view that this case should be heard by a Division Bench. The case is accordingly adjourned in terms of Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act.' 2. The petitioner is a charitable institution. For the assessment years 1959-6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(Ker)31; [1980]126ITR773(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. I.T.R. No. 156 of 1977 is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), pursuant to a direction issued by this court as per the judgment dated August 16, 1977, in O.P. No. 820 of 1977. The questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance of Rs. 54,206 including interest of Rs. 48,374 paid to the Canara Bank on the borrowings from them from the income of the firm was correct and whether at least to the extent of the income earned, the expenditure including interest should not have been allowed ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the bank was not carrying on business and whether it was not entitled to carry forward the loss ?' 2. The assessee--The S.P.V. Bank Ltd.--was carrying on business in banking till April 27, 1963, on which date the banking business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1980CriLJ1073
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, a Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Session at Manjeri, seeks to get expunged some remarks made against him in the court's order dated 18th January, 1980.2. The petitioner was in charge of Sessions Case No. 43 of 1978 and its trial started on 15-1-1980. Witnesses were examined on the 16th and 17th also, but by the evening of the 17th, he fell ill. In order to avoid interruption of the trial, he arranged for the Additional Public Prosecutor to take charge of it. The complaint is that when the report made in this connection came up before the court on the 18th, the then Sessions Judge sent for his Stenographer and passed an order making several disparaging remarks against the petitioner. It is alleged that the learned Judge had developed a dislike for him and had behaved insultingly towards him on prior occasions. The adverse comments were unwarranted and uncalled fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1981)22CTR(Ker)103; [1981]131ITR356(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has referred to thiscourt 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, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to go into the source of income which was not considered in the original assessment and which was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ' 2. The assessee is an individual who was deriving income from property as well as by way of a share from partnership business, apart from his own separate business in timber and petrol agency. In the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64, for which the accounting period was the year which ended on March 31, 1963, the assessee had put forward a claim for deduction of interest amounting to Rs. 60,749 on the basis that he had effected certain bor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1980Ker163
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord of a building in Mattancherry, a portion of which is in the possession of the 3rd respondent who is alleged to be a tenant. For default of payment of rent, R. C. P. No. 123 of 1971 was instituted by the petitioner in the Rent Control Court. The petitioner obtained an order for eviction on 18-12-1974. This order was challenged by the 3rd respondent in R. C. A. No. 13/1975. The appeal was dismissed by Ext. P1 dated 26-7-1976. The revision filed by the 3rd respondent on 15-1-1977 as R.C.R.P. No. 17/77 was also rejected by order dated 6-2-1978. Thus the original order of the Rent Control Court allowing the application for eviction of the 3rd respondent for reason of arrears of rent was confirmed. I am told that C. R. P. No. 1624/79-B filed in the High Court challenging the order of the revisional court was dismissed in limine. Subsequent to the decision of the revisional court, the 3rd respondent, I am told, paid up the entire arre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1981Ker24
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The tenant in a rent control petition is the revision petitioner. The building sought to be evicted is a running cashew factory. The landlord-respondent obtained rights in the property as per a document dated 20-8-1974. After waiting for the statutory period he filed the petition on two grounds, namely, bona fide need and waste. The claim for bona fide need found favour with alt the courts. Hence this revision.2. The petitioner's counsel urged two points before me : (1) that on the admitted facts of the case, the claim of the landlord will not come within Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and (2) that the lease in question is one falling outside the purview of the Act,3. Before the court of the Rent Controller the case of the tenant was that the petition related to a building and land held under a licence and not a lease. It was also contended that the claim put forward did not amount to bona fide need. The first court held against ...
Tag this Judgment!