Kerala Court January 1981 Judgments
C.K. Kuttappan and anr. Vs. Karthiyayani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker107
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioners are counter petitioners 2 and 5 in a debt relief petition before the Sub-Court of Kottayam, numbered as D. R. P. O. P. No. 89 of 1971. Respondents 1 to 10 herein are thepetitioners in that O. P. The 11th respondent is the first counter petitioner there. The debt relief petition was filed by respondents 1 to 10 under Section 11 of Act 11 of 1970 for redemption of Ext. A1 mortgage claiming that they are agriculturists entitled to redeem the mortgage on deposit of 1/3rd of the mortgage amount. The 11th respondent is the mortgagee. Counter petitioners 2 to 4 in the case were impleaded as persons residing in the buildings in the property. The additional counter petitioners 5 to 7 in the O. P. is the wife and children of the 4th counter petitioner. The first counter petitioner in the O. P., namely the 11th respondent herein had contended that the applicants before the lower court are not agriculturists as defined in Act 11 of 1970 and he had...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mammu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC128
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The appeal is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 404 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. He has been convicted under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85(ii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under the former offence. No separate sentence was awarded for the latter offence. The revision is filed by the complainant, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam, challenging the sentence imposed under the Customs Act and the non-imposition of the sentence under the Gold (Control) Act.2. The prosecution case can be summarised as follows:-On the night of 30th October, 1968, P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector attached to the X-Branch Vigilance Section of Police, got information that the appellant is engaged in the business of gold smuggling and is a black-marketeer and is secreting contraband gold, etc., in...
Tag this Judgment!Mammu and anr. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT54(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The appeal is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 404 of 1975 on the file of the Addl. Judicial 1 Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. He has been convicted under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 85 (ii) and (ix) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under the former offence. No. separate sentence was awarded for the latter offence. The revision is filed by the complainant, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam, challenging the sentence imposed under the Customs Act and the non-imposition of the sentence under the Gold Control Act.2. The prosecution case can be summarised as follows : On the night of 30-10-1968, P.W. 3, the Sub-inspector attached to the X-Branch Vigilance Section of police; got information that the appellant is engaged in the business of gold smuggling and is a black marketeer and is secreting contraband gold etc. in his house. He gav...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhatta Vs. Agrl. Income-tax Officer and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Ker)142; [1981]132ITR21(Ker)
SUBRAMONIAN POTI J. - Our learned brother, Kochu Thommen J., felt that the decision in O.P. No. 901 of 1967 (See infra p. 29) requires reconsideration and, therefore, referred this case to a Division Bench. The question raised in this case is of some importance. The Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950, provides, in s. 41(1), for the imposition of penalty when an assessee under that Act is in default in payment of agricultural income-tax. On such default, the Agrl. ITO may, in his discretion, direct that in addition to the amount of the arrears a sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered from the assessee by way of penalty. There is no time-limit specified in the Act for passing an order imposing penalty. Sub-section (4) of s. 41 provides that no proceeding for the recovery of any sum payable under the Act shall be commenced after the expiration of three years from the last day fixed for payment in the notice of demand served under s. 30 or where the assessee has been treated as not being in de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›