Kerala Court June 1981 Judgments
C. Thanka and ors. Vs. Narayani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker261
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. Tenants in Rent Control proceedings are the petitioners, and the common respondent, the landlord. The landlord has three buildings in Koor-kancherry Panchayat, on the outskirts of Trichur Town, occupied by eleven different tenants. The Rent Control Court allowed her petitions for evicting them on the ground of bona fide requirement to reconstruct, and the decision was upheld by the appellate authority and by the District Court. Eight of the tenants have now come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. In proceedings under Sub-section (4) (iv) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1995, the first thing to be looked into by a court is the condition of the building (or buildings). If the condition is such that it needs reconstruction, the next question will be about the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement. The court has also to satisfy itself that the plan and the licence, if required, are there, that the landlord has the ability to rebuild ...
Tag this Judgment!Moncompu Egg Store Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC518(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The revision petitioner is a dealer in eggs. The eggs are sold by the revision petitioner in inter-State commerce. Necessarily the eggs have to be sent properly packed. That calls for purchase of packing materials such as baskets, coir, straw and sticks. These are purchased by the petitioner from parties outside the State and it is agreed that no tax has been paid on the sales effected to the petitioner in respect of packing materials. The eggs sold by the revision petitioner is exempt from tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The tax under Kerala General Sales Tax Act was sought to be imposed in respect of the purchase turnover of the packing materials. It was so imposed by the order of the assessing authority despite the objection by the assessee that the turnover of the packing materials ought not to be taxed under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Two reasons were urged by the assessee. The first was that under Section 5(6) of the Keral...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Pappu and Sons Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC460(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The main question arising for decision in this revision is whether sewing thread is cotton yarn. During the relevant period cotton yarn was taxable only at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under Section 6. We are concerned in this tax revision case with an assessment order of the year 1973-74 during which year the revision petitioner-firm was carrying on the business of sale of sewing machines, cotton thread, etc. The firm was assessed to sales tax on the turnover of sewing thread, silk yarn, lace cloth and woven lace. It is the taxation of these items that is under dispute in this revision. The assessing authority, the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal have all held that the sales of these items are liable to tax. That is challenged in this revision.2. As indicated earlier sewing thread was contended to be cotton yarn so much so that according to the assessee he is not liable to tax on the sales of sewing threa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.A. Karim and Sons and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR515(Ker); [1982]51STC373(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J. 1. These cases have come up before the Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this court.2. I.T.R. No, 84 of 1978, arises out of the assessment under the I.T. Act for the assessment year 1974-75, against a firm. The relevant accounting year is April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974. The method of accounting is mercantile. The business of the assessee is one of processing, cashewnuts. Up to September 1, 1970, the assessee was directly importing cashewnuts from outside India. Cashewnuts were liable to be taxed at the point of last purchase in the State. Since the purchases up to August 31, 1970, were in the course of import the assessee was not being taxed on such purchases. From September 1, 1970, the Cashew Corporation of India alone was permitted to import cashewnuts. The assessee and other traders like the assessee had to purchase cashewnuts from the Cashew Corporation. Thereupon the assessee became liable to pay sales tax on the purchase of cashew fr...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker232
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The petitioner is the Tra-vancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd., Trivandrum. This writ petition has been brought to call for the records connected with the endorsement made by the second respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Idukki, in the registration certificate of the petitioner's tractors/trailers KLK 6776, KLK 6705 and lorry KLK 888 and to quash them. There is also prayer for a direction to the second respondent or to issue a writ of mandamus to delete all endorsements made in the Registration books of the petitioner's tractors/trailers KLK 6776 and KLK 6705 and lorry KLK 888 under Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963. Besides these there are other incidental reliefs sought in the writ petition.2. The counsel for the petitioner company submitted that inasmuch as the vehicles are not being used on public roads, the endorsements requiring payment under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayyan Achari Gopalan Achari Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1359
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Subbayyan Achari Gopalan Achari, who is now in judicial custody and is facing proceedings under Section 110(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code'). The petitioner was heard in person at one stage. Subsequently a member of this bar bag been appointed as the State Counsel to address arguments on his behalf. The learned Advocate General also has been heard,2. On 21-12-1980, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Punalur submitted a report to the Second Class Judicial Magistrate, Punalur stating that in the early hours of the morning on 21-12-1980 the petitioner was found suspiciously hiding in a varandah of a Hardware Shop near Punalur market and he was trying to escape when he was found by the police and .he gave evasive and misleading answers when he was questioned by the police regarding his identity and address, that he could not satisfactorily account for his presence there and that the police officer was satisfied...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudhan and ors. Vs. Aishabi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker185
George Vadakkel, J.1. Assan-kunji is the father of the 1'st plaintiff-1st respondent. On 29-9-1944, when the 1st plaintiff was still a minor, he executed Ext. Al document. It is, as mentioned therein, a sale deed. He is also the executee thereunder, but, is described therein, as the guardian of his daughter, the 1st plaintiff. Later, on 29-2-1956 Assankunji executed Ext. A2 possessory mortgage deed in favour of the 1st defendant, a cooly labourer, and put him in possession of Ext. Al property thereunder. This he did stating that the mortgaged property is his. The same year the 1st defendant put up a hut thereon and since then he is residing in that hut with his family. First defendant leased out this property to his wife, the 2nd defendant, also a cooly labourer, as per Ext. B2 lease deed of 12-11-1960. Claiming title under Ext. Al and contending that the mortgage and lease transactions are void 1st plaintiff and her husband, the 2nd plaintiff, filed the suit for recovery of the suit p...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, CochIn Port Wharf Staff Association Vs. Chairman, C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ173Ker
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The dispute in this writ petition falls within a short compass. Following the demand made by to Wharf Staff of the Cochin Port Trust in 1972 for reduction in the working hours so as to bring it in level with that of the indoor clerical staff, the Board of Trustees of the Port Trust constituted a sub-committee by resolution dated 23-11-1972 to go into the matter. The subcommittee after due deliberations made the following recommendation:The Committee felt that for the extra work turned out by them either some compensation should be paid or alternatively their working hours in the second shift should be reduced on par with the Indoor Ministerial staff. Taking all factors into consideration including the probable financial commitment, the sub-committee unanimously decided to recommend to the Board the payment of an additional amount of 10% of the basic pay of the Wharf Staff as compensation for the extra hours of work until such time as the Board is in a position to mak...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Kaipravan Meethale Veettil Narayanan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker252
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. In TLB 1807/73, the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba determined the extent of land belonging to now deceased Narayanan Nair and directed him to surrender excess land of 33,67 acres. This order was passed on 24-4-1976 and later on modified on 5-7-1976. Kerala Act 27 of 1979 validating certain gifts came into force on 7-7-1979. The Taluk Land Board had passed the orders aforesaid ignoring certain gift deeds executed by Narayanan Nair, as they were challenged under Section 84 of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (for short the 'Act'). After the Kerala Act 27 of 1979 came into force, the declarant filed a petition under Section 85 (10) of the Act for restoring possession of the lands on the basis of the validation of the impugned gift deeds. The Taluk Land Board went into the question, accepted the gifts validated by the Amending Act 27 of 1979 and determined the excess land belonging to the declarant as 3,81.250 acres. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Tali...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker40
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. In proceedings relating to the land held by the declarant Mathew Mathai, the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1206 of 1979 and the second respondent in C. R. P. 1965 of 1979, the Taluk Land Board originally determined the excess land belonging to him and directed him to surrender 8.32 acres of land as excess land. The declarant challenged the order before this Court in C.R.P. No. 76 of 1976, but the revision was dismissed on 4-10-1976. Thereafter Avira Ithapiri, the claimant, who is the second respondent in C. R. P. 1965 of 1979 moved an application under Section 85 (8) of Act 1 of 1964 contending that he is a tenant under the declarant in regard to 3.80 acres of land. The Taluk Land Board went into the claim and rejected his claim on 18-5-1977. This order was set aside in C. R. P. 1488 of 1977. This Court remanded the proceedings for fresh disposal. Thereafter the Land Board again went into the claim and upheld tenancy pleaded by him by a majority of 4 : 1, the Chairman...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »