Kerala Court September 1981 Judgments
Varkey Varkey Vs. N.M. Kurian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker222
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration that plaint items Nos. 1 to 3 belong to him as per a revenue sale and for a declaration that the decree, execution proceedings and the sale in O. S. No. 7o of 1963 are vitiated by fraud and collusion and not binding on his rights over the properties and for recovery of possession of mesne profits and in the alternative for redemption of Ext. D8 mortgage and possession of those items, and who was also unsuccessful in the first appellate court, is the appellant herein.2. Four items of properties shown in the plaint schedule belonged originally to the second defendant. He possessorily mortgaged the same on 21-3-1952 under Ext. D8 to one Karthiyani Amma for Rs. 2,500/-. The first defendant obtained assignment of the mortgage right on 20-2-1954 under Ext. p-1. For arrearsof abkari dues from the second defendant there was attachment on 18-12-1953 and sale by the Government on 7-3-1963 in which the properties were purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Textiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR785(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J.1. The following four questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, and these questions concern two assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of the admission made by the assessee-company in its declaration that the stock kept in the godown of Vijayakumar CottonPress, Coimbatore, and pledged to the bank by the assessee as security for the loan of Rs. 5,99,865, is the absolute property of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in casting the burden of proving the ownership of undisclosed stock on the Income-tax Officer and not on the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the ownership of the undisclosed stock lay with Vijayakumar Cotton Press and not with the assessee-company is based on mere conjectures or surmis...
Tag this Judgment!Merchants' Association, Sherthallai and Anr. Vs. the Sherthallai Munic ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker149
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The petitioners are stated to be dealers in textile goods within the limits of the Sherthallai Municipality, the respondent in the writ petition.2. In terms of the bye-laws of the respondent Municipality published on 22-2-1966 traders are required to take outlicence for 'storing of textiles', the licence fee prescribed being Rs. 100/- for storing goods beyond the value of Rupees 1,00,000/-.3. The question whether the collection of licence fee from dealers in textile goods was supported by quid pro quo in the shape of conferment of a special benefit on the class of licensees to which they belonged had come up for consideration before this Court in O. P. No. 2823 of 1972 filed by two dealers carrying on their business within the respondent Municipality. The Division Bench, before which it came up for bearing, in its judgment dated 6-3-1975 (reported in 1976 Ker LT 199 : (1976 Tax LR 1698)) held as follows (at p. 1701 of Tax LR) :--'We are unable to hold that the m...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Vijayan Vs. P. Damodaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker173
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The revision-petitioner obtained a certificate of purchase dt. 19-7-1974 as per orders of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode dt. 18-2-1974 in O. A. No. 1674 of 1971 for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord in respect of 23 cents of garden land in R. S. No. 58/5 of Vengeri Village Under Section 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Overlooking the issue of the certificate of purchase to the petitioner the respondent in this revision was also issued a certificate of purchase by the same Land Tribunal on 5-5-1975 as per its order dt. 27-4-1974 in O. A. No. 1081 of 1973. The revision-petitioner is not a party to O. A. 1081 of 1973; nor was the respondent a party to O. A. 1674 of 1971 filed by the revision-petitioner. Realising that in respect of the same property another certificate of purchase has been issued in favour of the respondent, the revision-petitioner filed an application I.A. 150 of 1975 purporting to be in both O.A. Nos. 1674 ...
Tag this Judgment!Traco Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Ker)307; [1982]138ITR385(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J. 1. On two reference applications, one by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred these cases consequent upon which two questions, one raised at the instance of the assessee and the other raised at the instance of the department call for answer by this court. The questions referred are : At the instance of the assessee ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the plant and machinery installed by the applicant for the manufacture of telephone cables do not fall under item No. 7 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' At the instance of the department ' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not excluding ' borrowed capital' from the computation of capital for the purposes of Section 80J of the I.T. Act,1961 ' 3. The facts on w...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. K.C. Hari Menon and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker35
George Vadakkel, J. 1. One of the reliefs sought for in the plaint is to set aside a sale deed dated 26-11-1977 in respect of an immovable property executed by the 1st defendant and his wife (since deceased) in favour of the 2nd defendant for Rs. 30,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the vendors had agreed to sell the said property to him for Rs. 25000/-. The plaintiff also seeks a decree for specific performance of the alleged agreement for sale in his favour; and in the alternative, claims a decree for refund of Rs. 9,700/- and for damages to the June of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff paid court-fee on Rs. 25,000/- under Sections 40 and 42(a) of the Court-fees Act, 1959. The 2nd defendant contended that the relief of setting aside the sale deed has to be separately valued and court-fee is leviable thereon for the market value of the property. This contention was upheld by the lower Court. It directed the plaintiff to take out a Commission to ascertain the market value of the said proper...
Tag this Judgment!Philip Raymond and anr. Vs. Kumara Pillai Demadaran Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker136
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. The same question arises in both these revisions. These were referred by one of us to a Division Bench because the dictum in Antony v. P. K. Rockey Memorial Trust (ILR (1980) 1 Ker 721) was doubted. The question for decision is simple. The decree holder in both these cases died. He had executed a will under which assets due to him were claimed by a Trust. The Managing Trustee of the Trust sought to execute the decree on the death of the decree-holder. The question was whether such execution can be permitted without taking out a probate of the will. In both these cases the learned Munsiff held that without such probate, execution cannot be permitted, That is challenged in these revisions.2. On the death of the decree-holder it is the legal representative who could execute the decree. If the decree-holder dies intestate his heirs at law inherit his assets and they are entitled to continue the execution as legal representative of the deceased decree-holder. I...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Krishnan Nambisan Vs. Registrar (Returning Officer) for the Condu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker73
Subramonian Poti Ag., C. J.1. Aquestion of considerable importance arises in this case. That concerns the construction at Section 10 (1) of the Cochin University Act, 1971. Section 10 (1) provides that the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the unanimous recommendation of a Committee appointed by him consisting of three members, 'one elected by the Senate. One elected by the Syndicate and the third nominated by the Government.' Whether the one member to be elected by the Senate should be a member of the Senate is the question here. The appellant before us who was the petitioner in the petition under Article 226 of the Constn. before the learned single Judge nominated a person who was not a member of the Senate as a candidate to be elected by the Senate to the three member Committee to be appointed by the Chancellor under Section 10 (1) of the University Act. The Registrar of the University who is the Returning Officer rejected the nomination, evid...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaranunni Vs. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas370(Ker)
M.P. Menon J. 1. This is a petition under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act. The petitioner is a member of a company, and he wants an order declaring that its affairs require investigation by an inspector appointed by the Central Govt. Before going into the facts of the case, it is necessary to examine under what circumstances such a declaration could be made. 2. Section 237 of the Act reads: 'Investigation of company's affairs in other cases.--Without prejudice to its powers under Section 235, the Central Government- (a) shall appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct, if- (i) the company, by special resolution ; or (ii) the court, by order, declares that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Central Government; and (b) may do so if, in the opinion of the Central Government, there are circumstances suggestin...
Tag this Judgment!Pilathottathil Muhamed Abdulla and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ465
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision is whether under no circumstance can the accused be discharged Under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short the Code, without taking all the evidence the complainant wants to produce. The accused in C. C No. 979 of 1978 of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Manjeri are the petitioners in this Criminal Revision, The respondent filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners Under Sections 447, 342, 324, 427 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The allegations in the complaint are ; The property, 75 cents in extent, comprised in R. Sy. 94/6 in Unniyalukkaparamba in perimbalam amsom belonging to his brother was in the possession and enjpyment of the complainant. On 9-7-1978 at about 10 a. m. when P.W. 1 the complainant was manuring his cultivation the accused trespassed into the property and Wrongfully confined him. The first accused beat him with a bamb...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »